finding the st inconsistency cited we believe to be manifestly trivial if it was basically when did the petitioner and his parents move into the address that was stated on his household register and he had said that he had lived there since an inconsistency which was not really i just there were no questions really asked follow up questions asked about that but again we believe that to be trivial in the sense that it's said there have been valid questions asked you know should  that that is significant i don't believe that that's that believe it is trivial in considering this case where the entire issue is trivial the entire issue about when he moved into his current address is trivial because i don't think it has anything to do with whether or not he works for the company says he worked for or whether he was a participant in a workers demonstration and whether or not he was around whether he was arrested at that house right right well what's not in dispute is that when he was arrested in that house on september th two thousand and eight basically when you know when his father was detained for two days you know because of what happened to him and again he again got the date wrong as to when his father was arrested but we believe that this should not reflect on his credibility because this was something that did not happen to him specifically it happened to his father that there is no inconsistency as to the fact that the father was arrested after wearing china correct so we know that they had to be sometime and he filled out a form in august of two thousand and nine in which he said his father had been arrested a week earlier correct which was inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing that it was in november or december of two thousand and eight is surprisingly eight months difference and although it wasn't to his personal arrest when he filled out the form is that something happened a week prior that seems like something you would remember your father being arrested a week earlier so how did how does he explain his inconsistency and i understand your point your honor and you know my biggest problem with these types of cases that sometimes we simply just say oh there was an inconsistency and one inconsistency can form the basis of an adverse credibility finding but we don't evaluate it in terms of what does this say about this person's truthfulness or lack thereof and in considering this again this is something that not that did not happen to him happened to his father and so five years later when you have a hearing and you get the date wrong well he didn't i mean so i mean he was clear and relatively when it was i e it was after he left not too long after he left to run again now and exactly why it was correct and that's why we believe that this should not reflect on his truthfulness i don't believe that this was based upon untruthfulness it was simply just a lack of clear memory about something that did not occur to him it was a phone company jenna's not even a memory i mean i court but if he were for example to be found credible then the the immigration court would then have to evaluate credibility that because he's credible whether or not these facts that would add up the past persecution or well founded fear of future persecution and aside from the credibility the other issue in this case is whether or not the documents that were submitted can independently establish his asylum claim and we do believe that that is that that is so in this case that if we were verse on the adverse credibility however it is still possible that the immigration judge could say even with the credible testimony that we still need some corroborating evidence so i do believe that this torch should actually rule our operating that he was detained for fifteen days and that he did have to pay six thousand nexus well it does say at least on there it does say for anti government activities or something of that nature so it does say that it doesn't say for workers demonstration or anything of that nature that's true but we do believe that just simply saying that it was anti government decision and i believe that that's it's not like a police report or some kind of simply just stating what what the disposition of the case was right and that's what it was is that illegal anti government meeting and so that's why we believe that there was nothing found about these documents that were unreliable they simply said that these documents were not complete and could not of itself verify the case so council in response to a judge presents a question of what happens next i  your answer to be that you believe this court should reverse the adverse credibility to terminations in remained to the agency for further proceedings is that correct yes yes and then once that happens then the court can  e based upon credible testimony whether or not this person actually suffered past persecution or whether there's a well founded fear we'll have thirty seconds left so thank  much may please the court benjamin mark mosse for the respondent the attorney general after a full and fair hearing before an immigration judge the board of immigration appeals agreed mr wang failed to present a credible claim and alternatively failed to reasonably corroborated and because each of these alternative findings are supported by substantial evidence we asked the court to deny the review petition for two reasons  mr owings evidence was inconsistent and important topics including relating to when the father was allegedly arrested which goes to the heart of the claim even though the not do that under the real idea i'll turn to when  when doesn't come out of the heart of the claim that he was might have been porton whether it was relatively he said it was after he got to the united states  but then later he said no no i don't really know he agreed with the assertion of certainly it was november or december two thousand and eight and then he then he changed his mind before this the the contradiction was brought up as i recall he changed his mind and then he was given an opportunity to explain it and he didn't really offer an explanation beyond that he didn't really was he did it that way so much that happened five years ago i wasn't sure of the day but that so your honour's st question or st point that there's that a different point well you actually remember right i understand you hear the voices entitle to rely on this inconsistency as substantial evidence even if the court has a different view of it and understanding that reasonable minds may differ the record has to compel an alternative conclusion not just what it and if i can one thing on the other inconsistency i know you don't tell me one is consistency is enough which i never understood because of the i j a says there are five reasons why i think he was incons don't believe him and now we're down to one we have absolutely no reason to think the idea would have come to the same conclusion on one inconsistency but i know we've said this over and over again it's doesn't make a bit of sense in terms of how people actually make decisions but i believe  are the record before the court is the translation i know but i'm just curious so if somebody had asked me this question any coherent fashion he might have said pointed out that it's actually not what it says on the mandarin form because i think it's not and in fact he had the address i'm sorry the judge after the courtyard just read the judge then asks that's the i'm sorry is that your complete answer because nobody said he thought they were questioning the address and what they said to him can you explain why you're sworn application indicates that because the question was can you explain he didn't explain your spine a lot now can you explain the day explain the discrepancy your honor and his counsel had the opportunity if you had wanted to ask questions to develop that point if you felt that he had not adequately explained it despite  opportunity he said that's the had personal muchly advice and the agency was not it required to accept that particular explanation this this court's cases make that clear that the agency is allowed to weigh the evidence including yes if you have a  him a clear opportunity to clear questions he understands what he would be explaining so if the court were to find that he wasn't given a reasonable opportunity to explain the inconsistency and reverse the adverse credibility determination what is it that the corroboration that would be necessary in the id's analysis and you're nodding your head yes i'm not in your head to understand your honour's question ok but i do not think that is the case here it could be the case in since some situations but i think if you look at what the establish his kind independently but it could core corroborate aspects of his client stewart and say i think i see what you're saying that is not the way that i read the record but if if the court reads the record as the that the credibility then i think that the fair thing to do would be to send it back to the board for the board clarify whether in fact the proposition was separate or part and parcel with the credibility robberies the entire story for instance your honor the details of the arrest that's just totally missing where the eyewitness accounts right but that comes from the testimony if you believe that's what kind of think the two issues are dependent on each other i see that i see a reading of course but i just think that the board's language is clear enough to enable the court to conclude that it's independent an alternative finding which by the way in mr owings board brief thirteen he agrees that it's an independent finding and that's that is independent of the incredible testimony rocks so you can even if the board got it wrong and credibility and we're not going to suggest that but we understand the he didn't show that it was hard rising to level persecution which the board tells us there at the bottom i guess it's the nd to last full paragraph on page five which which gives an indication of the board was just not confident that he suffered on corroboration i think the issue is has he corroborated whether or not those details of the arrest occurred how does he corroborate that by independent evidence that's impossible burnout thinking help people to that it's not impossible there were six people who were arrested that day as well as his parents who said he was regularly in touch with in fact two weeks before the hearing he had been in touch with his parents there's no reason he could not reasonably have obtained a statement from his mother or his father or one of the five other people who are also  rest of that day to verify the age of the claim if you look at the coworkers affidavit it has no foundation it doesn't explain how the coworker knows any of the details relating to the arrest the board is allowed to say we need some kind of preparation here to support these elements of the claim even though as your honor pointed out there are other aspects that he did corroborate so is your argument that if his testimony were deemed credible his testimony alone without cooperation would not be sufficient