i don't know what's going on but i want to i want to caution attorneys i'm going to have walked into this something's wrong i'm not saying in this case i don't know about the others but you can't have five people with virtually  so i mean one thing that's a runner is that you know if miller of the discussion you had with mr job last month when there were four cases that were consolidated by this court because they had to do with the relocation issue that was common between them  i would assume that your honor isn't as familiar and judge when as well this court deals with many many appeals and has for years of people who are who are see calloused on the separatists from northern india and the fact that there is many people applying for asylum from a very populous part of the world i don't think in itself raises suspicion with respect angela i'm not talking about that i'm saying the allege the things where they  i think if you were to look at situations in places where there's been mass persecution in the past people stories of how they were singled out how they were persecuted by soviet regimes in rwanda in that in germany a lot of the sort of ways that pers amount of the bribe it sounds like is there some social reason why the amount of the bribe seems to be all the same i don't know i don't think that's true from from my experience having also seen a number of these cases commission from a credible fear screening interview that was conducted and i think in a way that's kind of the biggest issue and so i want to get back to that in a second but first if i can i want to try to run through more quickly what i think were sort of objective y lesser and even more poorly founded bases so first as to the birth certificate i think it's sort of manifestly trivial as to whether he  whether he have a copy of his birth certificate that was submitted to the court when he was in india or not he explained that the birth certificate had been registered and that he was confused as to whether this particular document had been made then or no write well well your honor there is for things like i said that i'm happy to address in turn and that's where this court addresses them when it when it decides cases like this obviously ultimately it's a fatality but that's sort of all we can do is look at them one at a time and that's what this court to present kind of a narrative about this is why i'm seeking asylum this is what happened to me there was no such opportunity during the credible i don't think we i don't think we argue that at all and i briefs certainly but that then that goes to why was it mentioned specifically asked that he was only responding to questions that he was specifically asked right in the instructions he were he was given before the screening interview started this is that there are six hundred fifty three is to tell the truth and respond to all my questions at his hearing for the i j he testified that he did exactly that that he answered whatever they asked him but he wasn't specifically asked if he was arrested because of his party and so he didn't think that came up and he didn't mention it however when he was asked if he feared that the government would harm him he said yes the government will severely harm me when he was asked if he was arrested because of a nonpolitical crime he said no which is the case his testimony was that he was never charged with a crime and the only reason he was arrested was because of his political activities and so i think that idea is reasoning on this but when it was asked about the arrest and his explanation is they specifically focused on nonpolitical crimes he wasn't asked about the arrest he was asked if he was arrested because of a nonpolitical crime that's the only question about an arrest and he said no and he didn't elaborate i think that i g is reasoning on this point comes from two different acts one is a misrepresentation of the record and saying that he was directly questioned about this incident she said that just that they are ninety two and that's just not true he wasn't directly questioned about this incident was she was arrested because of his political activities or any other college that it's not a verbatim transcript it's an officers the asylum officer who's assigned to be doing the screening interviews down the border people are detained after they're apprehended it's that officers non verbatim no it's to help him decide the credible fear determination always looks to me like the court reporter has it's good sentences and everything but there i agree there was no question directly about other  other political arrests so that's not in those notes and certainly he you know he's you know he could have brought it up and you know that's not just when that he didn't have a chance to bring it up he was asked as anything else he'd like to add he could've he could have brought it up then but i think it's just speculation on the part of the i j a putting myself in his shoes to say that in that situation i would expect someone to raise this and i think that kind of i think that's a legitimate point though i know i know that the question wasn't phrased to directly call for that but you're a credible fear interview you're trying to talk about your persecution and why you're seeking protection and the subject of an arrest came up and i didn't mean to suggest that he was that they didn't limit it to nonpolitical crime but you would you would think that that is something that you would volunteer so i don't think it's ridiculous of the i j a to say well why would you bring this up right and i think he explained that he didn't bring it up because it was and that was what he understood from the directions he got was to respond to the questions that were asked and i think that's i think that's a reasonable explanation i think that i j i think under this court's decision for example in bhandari to twenty seven s third eleven sixty at eleven sixty seven from two thousand found that it was similarly improper speculation for an i j to put yourself in the place of a petition there and can make conjecture about what should or should not have been in  application that sort of rule about speculation not being substantial evidence still holds even a under the real i d act as in this court's decisions and ran and she i want to move back to the issue of the election cards briefly now granted this was a bit confusing sort of what happened here but i don't think there's any support for the agencies for the agency statement that his that he gave various explanations for this that were got a permanent card that was submitted and that's what i did refer to his card too however he didn't have an original of that temporary card and so and this is sort of was an odd thing to do i think but his understanding was that he had to g had a copy of that made this card three herself clearly understood all of this at a r four twenty nine and she said card one is a photocopy its last card two is a permanent one with the correct birth date or three is the most recent one the replacement of the temporary card it was only when she got to her decision that she iran as we said this is the only id information that was provided was these cards and that i have no idea who he is and in fact he provided a bunch of other identity documents they had a new card made of that temporary card from two thousand and eight but they didn't actually have a record of the temporary card and so they had someone kind of really make that temporary card i mean it's not something that i would do it's a weird thing that he had done but i don't think it attracts my credibility as to any of the merits of his claim that things braga appearing on behalf of the acting attorney general the court should deny the petition for review because substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of relief and protection on adverse credibility grounds considering the reason cited for the agency in finding that mr singh had not testify credibly most importantly mr singh failed to mention that he was being by police in june two thousand and ten when he had a credible fear interview this court has held that emissions of beatings are significant so we agree that there was a little mistake and saying that there was a direct inconsistency there was an omission yes if there was no mention  it's not a total transcript right yes that's that's a mistake when we deal with that oh i believe it was the immigration judge that said that there had been a direct question i don't believe there were the board referred to it as a direct question  in that instance it would be harmless error by the immigration judge i think that the board's decision and the rest of the immigration judge's decision explains as your honor was indicating earlier that he had an opportunity to raise this issue during his credible fear interview what if that factored into the i g s analysis and a would have looked at that fact differently had he realized that it wasn't a direct question but it was an omission we're supposed to assess the totality of the circumstances so the i g mistakenly thought that he asked this and directly failed to respond when he had what do we do with that well again i think you can look at the board decision affirming the adverse credibility finding and i don't think the board is specifically affirming the fact that the petitioner was asked directly were you arrested and you know for a political pratt crime and responded no i think that you can look at the board's reliance on that fact as indicating that the credibility problem here is the fact that it's clear from what happened during the credible fear interview that mr singh did have a chance to mention what had happened in june two thousand and ten notably mr saying now and before the agency explains that he doesn't believe during the credible fear interview he was asked about whether he had been mistreated or been arrested by police but when he testifies to that fact before the i j a he directly links it to his membership in the party and that testimony is found in the record at pages one eighty three to one eighty six so to the extent that in a credible fear interview the interviewer is clearly asking mr singh and he doesn't dispute this what harm occurred to him as a result of his party membership he's not indicating as he does before that i j that police mistreatment occurred to him as a result of his party membership with regard to the end of the documents the i g at the end made a finding that he wasn't sure couldn't be sure who the petitioner was because of all these conflicting documents what do we do with the fact that the i g had earlier stated i don't think his identity as an issue in government council the identities issue but yet the and that's the one of the grounds for the adverse credibility feeling well again i don't think that relief was denied here based and that i j not believing that the petitioner was who he said he was i think the credibility problem relates to identity i don't think there's anything preventing an i j from indicating while testimony is being given that she maybe doesn't think that something is an issue but then later when evaluating all of the testimony in its totality finding that there is an issue with that but ultimately i don't think that she's making a finding here based on identity i think she's saying that these documents specifically the election cards are so confusing and the explanation for them so evolving and even after the explanation the problems remaining and the fact that it's unclear why the temporary card was lost it's unclear why there are different birth dates it's unclear why there are different photographs i think that i and then the board later is ultimately relying on those factors to say that that is something that makes them doubt the petitioner's credibility and the election card as it is evidence of the petitioners identity is is evidence related to identity but i don't think that there is an identity finding here that led to a denial of relief i think it's simply an adverse credibility factor additionally with regard to the birth certificate that's another identity document where there's another inconsistency and the birth certificate indicates that it was issued after the petitioner had already departed for the united states when the petitioner was show the document during his proceedings he indicated that he had had it in india and he later claims that he didn't believe that the d n a test counsel was referring to the exact document that he showed him but that's just implausible and the immigration judge is not required to accept explanations for inconsistency examinations even if they are plausible in addition to the problems already cited with petitioners testimony including the fact that he failed to mention a police beating prior to his testimony  issue with the election cards that testimony just being very confusing and still leaving some holes and the issue with the inconsistent testimony about whether he now had the birth certificate there's also  testimony that the congress party had won in his district for the two thousand and twelve elections which is an accurate i j was and the board were correct to rely on this as actually not sure that's true i  thought the test was very confused about exactly what and which election and which entity in the election was being discussed and there was also a confusion between which party he to there's there's a couple of different parties right there was i thought at some point everybody seemed confused about what they were talking about so again i think that i will respond directly to your question but i think the fact that everyone seems confused about what's being talked about at various points during this case really bears on the credibility of the petitioner it's the petitioners burden to prove that he is eligible for relief and to offer credible testimony in that regard so to the extent there exists confusion regarding what he has been saying and what he has been submitting i think that should and did in this case bear negatively on credibility if the if it's not his attorney and not him that's causing the confusion but rather the j and the other attorney and what can you do with that that's to me that the id was confused at one point and then confused in another point and perhaps same for the attorney yes i think again i think there was a lot of confusion in this case i think that's clear from the record but regarding specifically the election i think the confusion resulted from the fact that  believed that it was actually his party who had won the election but it turned out it wasn't actually his party it was just a different party but it still was not the congress party and i think the board relies more generally on the fact that he was just unaware of the correct election results to bear negatively on his credibility particularly considering that this is a claim based on political opinion and also based on the fact that he claims to have gotten the information from his father who had been quote politically active even before him it's just implausible that his father wouldn't know not necessarily exactly who had won the election but that would  was indicating that based on who he is and his political involvement he and his father who he claims was also politically active should have had more of a general awareness to not indicate in correct election results  additionally the agency denied cat here and that denial is supported by substantial evidence because the cat claim is based on the same incredible testimony that the asylum withholding claims are based upon and the petitioner did not point to any other independent evidence in the record that would show that he would more likely than not be tortured if there are no further questions we ask the court to deny the petition for you thank you cou