two thousand and four and their case was heard in court in two thousand and ten the merits hearing and that she's important in november of november eighth of two thousand and ten and at the end of the merits hearing as you can also see in the government about on december twenty ninth about a month and a half later or a little more than that the judge issued a written decision we never went back to court and he's written decision the judge found many many reasons to believe respondent the petitioner was not credible and the united case we have a problem with this year we believe that the reasons found by the judge are not major reasons they do not go to the heart of the matter and they do not support in at an adverse critical defining which will go to some of these issues and i'll explain why i believe that but most importantly your honor is that the judge at the time when he made that statement was in the best position to make a decision yeah it's about i'm afraid i can't rule for you simply on the basis of the judge changed his mind yes no i understand but it's important to realize that at a time when the judge said that the judge had freshly observed the petitioner testify he had seen his demeanor he had seen harder is not the petitioner moves his hands when he's talking about the opposition he had seen harvey breeds h starts beating when he talks about the death of his son that's why the judge agreed that the response the petitioner is credible now after that all those very last those very important evidence in my client case he's demeanor his attitude the way he moved the way he bridge bread the way he looked at the middle of a difference your honor could you talk about the specifics of the case yes specifically the just came back and said that there are few problems with the case and my client is not credible one of the issues was regarding when he was he was beaten at his workplace and that he said that he was slapped believe that would make my client not to be credible after he was asked without giving being given any clues he did says yes there was a third person who was a truck driver who was also slat in addition to that then he continued yes and then in the statement i refused and my two employees and i were beaten tell me about the translation part obviously he's not writing this in english somebody else accurate at an early stage when we're having the testimony we're told that there are two translators one from georgia to russia right now not from russian to english then there's an interruption and there's used so in the second was so when the hearing resumes we have someone who simply able to translate between georgian and russian georgian and english yes your ok that's mine so just the first half that he has it too late ye that's my understanding you let me because time is the enemy here let me tell you which of these credibility findings is most concerning to me and that has to do with the the death of son anthony it just seems unbelievable to me that your client would not have a clear recollection of the circumstances surrounding his son's murder these other issues you know i can sort of take with a grain of salt but as to that one i really  that i understand your honor but you should also realize that at the time when the judge saudis inconsistences the judge confronted my client in a courtroom and when my client was able to explain and as the judge observed my client demeanor the judge came back and say actually all of there are some problems that i see i believe that he's saying the truth the judge says he says he discovers his son's body at one point in time then he says he didn't encounter his son's body until he got to the morgue i mean these are well you would think in terms of the death of your own son you'd have a clear recollection as to what happened well first of all until we are put in a position like that i cannot tell you whether i would remember everything if my child is killed because they will be a very traumatic situation and they we may lose some memory we may see things differently today and see them differently eight years or ten years before when the is into place you wouldn't remember where you first saw your son hospital but he was never even never been he was never given the opportunity to explain that or to morgan the hospital or even the same scene but he did go on and explain this is not right and he answered the so far not provided i just want to read from the transcript on page two fourteen and the government may want to be long with me this is now the petitioner the asylum seeker testifying with respect to the sun i went to la go day here to see my  because my son was detained for night prior so what i find is my son dead on the in a ditch and the pastor was passing by not a pastor but a person was passing by and saw when i went to la go to the he they didn't even tell me thing i did not know anything i was told what happened that he was found dead that strikes me and the lesion or a summary at the at that first part when i say when i so i have so what i find is my son dead well in the same paragraph he says i was told what happened that he was found dead i do not read that first sentence as him saying i saw him there dead on the dish i think that's a translation  maybe a sort of figure of speech i find that my son is dead meaning i discover i believe this i do not think he said first within the space of three five lines that i saw him dad and i didn't see him dead i think he said i find out that my son is dead but he very clearly says i was told what happened that he was found dead your honor it seems that the immigration judge agreed with you because he said that there was invalid and his demeanor was pretty convincing that the statement was wrong and he was telling us the truth that's disregarding the son that he first in his son's body at the morgue that's the record on page  three eleven your own so it seems that the judge agrees with you that although there may be some inconsistencies it may be because of translation errors or something less but at least his explanation was good enough for the judge to agree and to believe that he's he's  i go back yes make sure you are serious my time is almost up your honor i would like to let the court know that our position is that there may be some inconsistencies in this matter but none of them go to the heart of the matter none of them are important enough to make responder the petitioner not a credible person and although the judge has absolutely the right to change his mind or her mind afterwards when looking at the record the judge never mentioned anything about my two thousand and three and he indicated you know everyone had a speech and i had a speech to and the judge confronted him saying in your statement you don't say that you had a speech and the judge came back to say he's only explanation was that it should have been there but that was not the entire sentence i'm going to read the entire sentence with which he said it should have been there because i was voicing my view and making speeches everywhere that there was a media meeting every time even if there was to like ten people i would you know make speeches for to convince people to let them see the right way for the country and the government and to vote for me so this is an entire state action now this is this this case has been heard three different times first by an asylum officer then by an immigration judge then by the board of immigration appeals heard in the ordinary way and i say get out of the ordinary attempt by three men so petitioner submitted a narrative statement in which he stated that these three men came to his office and beat him and his two employees up and that following that incident he filed a police report  report was ignored however during testimony petitioners testified that that these men came to his office and beat him and his secretary and only when pressed on whether it was just he and his secretary that's when he stated there also leasing land on which he is farming so a tractor driver is different from a truck driver i think that sounds as though that maybe somebody who works for him certainly that's a plausible explanation however what we're looking for here is compelling evidence that's the standard i'm looking for compelling evidence to support the adverse credibility finding and so far i'm not there ok so i will move on then so perhaps more troubling though is what he described in the aftermath of this event he stated that  reported this to the police and that that report was ignored however when he testified regarding this incident he said that he reported to the police and instead of ignoring it the police actually came back threatened him with death and said that if you didn't withdraw complaint that they would that they would kill him and this is certainly a substantial envelopment because it's talking about a material element to this claim although this is weird usually we get a written statement that is made prior to the oral testimony and if we get oral testimony embellishing the written statement were suspicious of it because all of a sudden your story got better right but in this case he testifies first and this narrative comes later isn't that right no the narrative was actually submitted it's on page and i think it's ninety three of the record so that's at the very beginning of the april twenty sixth two thousand and five hearing so he did submit this narrative  in the normal going in the normal course yes so so that does represent a substantial embellish ment because it's talking about the police rather than just ignoring something actually coming forth and actively threatening him with  death the second inconsistency regards a march two thousand and three political meeting at a soccer stadium petitioner testified that certain individuals including his son and the party leader had made speeches at this event that ultimately was broken up with by the police who beat many of the attendees there however when he testified starting this incident incident he again embellish his own political involvement by stating that he himself made a speech  since this was a central element of his claim because it deals with the police action against individuals who have this political pinion has it does go to the heart of the claim the third inconsistency mean delhi and other members of our party made speeches among the speakers and my son was dispersed with the toms and so you're saying well he's embellishing because in his narrative statement he says he's talking to know it well when he know arrests council yes before you go on to that last one did he say whether he was giving a speech to the whole crowd you know like  features big speakers or could he have been just saying he's making comments to the people around them and so he said that each of the speakers was given five minutes and that he himself spoke for the five minutes so no he does not explicitly state that that you know he was that this was like a a main event but certainly the implication is that it was a formal he had five minutes to give a speech that kind of thing rather than just talking to people thank you that's over ok so tell me in an error in an hour in the transcript his discussion of his speech speaking ok and i realize this may take you over but so is important enough i think we better make sure says ok what happened what happened that you know during that time the political leader made that statement there were also and then he names other people who made a statement and then he said i made the statement even my child my son be the same  are you on oh this is right at the top of the very first paragraph of page two ten i made the statement ok they do discuss the fact that so down on the bottom of page t eleven probably about four lines up from the bottom they they specifically confront him with that inconsistency so yes every bit of time limit like kind of an i did make a speech to ok so and they were quite significant in his claim he submitted in his statement that of that a few active members of his party and some of the villagers had been had been arrested on that  y he then he then testified that forty to fifty individuals i had been arrested during his testimony while petitioner now in his in his statement to this court and in his brief has argued that this makes sense because because as a percentage of the population of the village plus the active participants in in the party that that together would would seem like forty to fifty want to clarify one thing about the son's death because it did come up during during my colleague's time which is that he during his testimony said on page two fourteen you pointed out that  so the the inconsistency was not between that statement and his later statements the inconsistency was between his his narrative statement in which he specifically stated i found my partner i took my son's body to the hospital but where's the inconsistency between the narrative is just the narrative states that he took his son's body to the hospital whereas the whereas his his testimony states that he did whatever it takes the order to find out exactly what happened to his son and that the police will persecute him because of this so since this is so central to his claim it it goes straight to the heart of the matter so it's an appropriate basis for the agency to rely upon when finding that he was not credible so with that it doesn't make any real difference he does not enhance his claim to me being consistent just make a difference whether he in fact was giving a speech or whether he didn't give a speech so he says testimony i gave a speech like your body else for five minutes and then the narrative he talks about speeches given by songs on others including a song not mentioning himself i think that does make it well well but but but he does go on and explain what happened he was rich which i ready to you he does explain that i translation may have lost some of the meaning of the words or have changed the meaning of the words you see it's not very clear and fortunately nobody except him spoke the language a translator was able to translate we don't know exactly what was exact translated craig words were used or not now not saying because of that every case has to be i'm very sympathetic to the translation claims a particular has to go through two layers but even the nuance of the words whether somebody was whether someone was slap whether someone was arrested or someone was detained all those are words that can slip around in translation i get that but if he's talking about the speech when he's talking about more specifically under questioning it sounds that wasn't just a statement he's very specific saying everybody got five minutes and i got five minutes all right five minutes that's not going to be a translation difficult what he wrote and what he said in court well we all know whatever you may be able to recall something rewriting then when we talk about it we remember other aspects of our other little point that does doesn't necessarily make us not credible you see your honor and that's why when the judge this he was present he saw all the evidence including his demeanor in court he said i tend to believe i'm going to grant this case and that i restaurant and i wish that this court and your honors will decide the sa