we will give you one minute  i would like to reserve two minutes for a battle this is case comes down to credibility this whole appeal turns on whether dr weil's medical opinion is an internal to the immigration judges adverse credibility determination and whether the board erred in finding that it was not dr weil's opinion is vital and material to the credibility finding because that doctor found that when ms is inconsistent in a court hearing she is not a lingering she is not attending to deliberately mislead rather than she is suffering from an extremely disturbed mental state her staring at her hearings for asylum triggered her her thoughts are blocked sequential the board's determination that the undisputed medical evidence was immaterial to her claims and immaterial to the credibility finding is the very definition of arbitrary irrational and contrary to law as a result this court should reverse with instructions to reopen and remand down so i have a question about the whether at at a hearing or not in any other context has your client come forward with an explanation for how there could be this discrepancy between the newspaper missing person ad yes your honor in the right he has come forward with evidence in her motion to reopen the nd reopen and rapine brief regarding the newspaper article as your honor knows she testified that she downloaded the article from the internet and the government show that that could not have happened the medical opinion from dr weil which tells us counsel you're going i think you're missing my question started to get to it there but if you could just back up so that i can maybe get you to really respond i'm trying to figure out this is the discrepancy she testified that she herself went in and downloaded this article as i understand it so how did i don't know how the any of the other evidence changes this problem that she's go it's not that somebody sent it to her and that she's our guys i understand the record it doesn't is that the record is not that somebody sent it to her and that she then you know and for that reason didn't realize that there had been this apparent alteration of the document my understanding  have but that is what she testified to in the court and that's why the opinion evidence from dr weil is a reason why the credibility determination could change because dr was opinion shows triggered by the events of the hearing so her long term memory is confused in non sequential her thoughts heard her condition that is equivalent to two extreme trauma brain damage the but right that's it that's right your honor but the overall the the opinion should be used as a lens to view her overall life this is a condition which she said is from all the time and she's in that condition where she is experiencing a fear of having to be returned to kenya if her testimony is not believed and the doctor explains that when she is in these situations she has the panic attack and  no matter what your client said again during the hearing and there's more than one inconsistency there was a really no i guess it would be fair to describe it as egregious inconsistency with respect to the newspaper article which as judge presiding noted she testified multiple pages in the transcript quite coherent laying clearly about did not change that story until she was confronted with the evidence that it was not plausible but wasn't challenged on inch when she said all of that she also talked about a postcard that she received that was dated after the time she said her husband  disappeared she lost contact with them and there was also a question of testimony about signatures on her or her wedding license your wedding certificate but through all of this the immigration judge found that she was coherent clear opinion that doesn't mean that they agency can find she's not credible nations yesterday except for just regard any inconsistency is because of her diagnosis and i don't see any way around it i mean what else are they supposed to do with that's the determination to be the agency of the immigration judge so the evidence would just be that there is this diagnosis and that she has these sorts of issues and then the immigration judge is going to have to weigh the credibility of the of the cish and she testif articulate clear calm coherent she was is not going to make a difference and you're saying that that's not supported by substantial evidence yes sure that's cracked and is our position the medical opinion it should be is  there was a test to taste and there wasn't a concern about her seeming to try to remember something she was having difficulty remembering that's that's what my colleagues all three of us now are are inviting you to respond to that point and i so far i haven't by this situation in a panic attack situation a person could say whatever they need to say to get out of ok lation ok that's the part we do understand your just to be clear and then we'll move over because you're out of time pass in consistency not just inconsistency in testimony wish there was as the immigration judge found but inconsistency or lack of who hearings between the testimony and documents which the immigration judge found a great deal  now after the fact i'm looking for an explanation for how can this be this downloaded article that very clearly i don't want to go through the facts because you know them very clearly someone cut and pasted this division's i'm going to looking for a coherent she's had a panic attack she had a panic attack when she had to to deliver this testimony ok great hands and i guess falsely just incorrectly would say testified that she maybe maybe misremembered that she testified that she downloaded this and i guess we'd have to take us through that what really happened is that that was wrong and that this relative sent it to her ok but i was down trying to figure i might be accuser would have created this document that's where i get that's why i get th stance we can't get away from it and we have this other document that we have to accept as true but ultimately to the extent that she is attempting to testify differently today that she testified before  that that if we are going to say that there is an exception just for this general prescription that you can't look behind the veracity of the documents that come with a money to reopen this is going to be circumstances which that's true but putting all that aside does it have any other questions for me the government will rest thank you i do have a question because it is ok i do have a question on a different matter maybe i am found out that the motion to always worthwhile to get the worse i guess what reasoning on the reasoning on it but you're right this would be a rd by the end by a board i don't think we this is entirely if the court doesn't want to  farhi the evidence in the record is that he is her rapist he doesn't see her as a person he sees her as property to be inherited that's consistent with the practicing cheny of wife inheritance that he kidnapped her children when she went to to save them raped her tortured her held her against her will this is a man who the record shows does not respect her as a human being and such taking the extra step of giving her another little torture through an article send via his sister is believable it's consistent with with the type of person who would do that is to to a presumed widow and then the core pointed out the affidavit from the sister should be taken as true and the sister explains