place well the tape was requested by my office shortly after the trial the the court immigration part said they couldn't find it but somehow it magically appeared in maryland for the transcription but then after that when it was requested again by my office when it was sent after it was sent back to los angeles it was they cannot find it again so without the tape my client cannot prove that translation that relevant material translation errors occurred which caused the immigration judge to find that she lacked credibility because her story appeared to be inconsistent based on the translation errors the judge did take over  that the translation errors were minor if they existed but without the tape to see what the translation were errors were and how major they were i i think you'd be hard to make that determination  confusion in the timeline in the mind of the immigration judge because of the fact that she thought that the immigration judge thought there was only one arrest of the respondents my client's husband when in fact there were three arrests and because the translator wasn't translating correctly that guy did not come through and got confused the other big confusion was the dates there's a difference of seven years and eight months between the ethiopian counter and the american counter of the immigration judge did make a statement that was borrowed maybe possibly part of the b i that said when i when i have a story is made up it's hard to keep it consistent but i believe that the seeming inconsistencies were from translation  well just basically you know there is her husband being arrested and then he was held in custody all the way till this year and then just released this year and then we arrested within the last few days her  daughters were both questioned when she filed for when after her june two thousand and two hearing one of the most rested now one of them is living in the united kingdom and she has been granted political asylum there the other one is living in exile and going on is trying to get without without the tape and without proper translation my client cannot prove whether or not she was giving due process and a fair hearing i would contend that based on the tape i don't think that's fatal however the government's position certainly because the petitioner here did submit a brief to the b i a and in that belief she had gone through the translation of the hearing with another translator i believe it was her causes of the adverse credibility finding she explained the miss communications most of them seem to be fanatical misspellings the transcription errors by the court reporter perhaps rather than the translator and also what she included was what her answers would have been and she tried to explain to the b i a what her basis for persecution was she never raised any concern that the translator omitted evidence such as there were additional things going on in ethiopia that she experienced that didn't come across to the immigration judge and what to be i e then has before it was her statement which accompanied her asylum application and she has never claimed that her statement was the subject of mistranslation or incompleteness or omissions her immigration hearing testimony as well as the supplemental answers that she attached to her brief to the b s a and looking at all of that the board of immigrations just felt that what she experience did not rise to the level of persecution the i also made an alternative finding and if for example the translation errors contributed to an adverse credibility finding the board of immigration appeals assume credibility and still found that what she experienced me theo be either did not rise to the level of persecution or was not shown to be motivated by one of the five a numerated grounds for example the lack of a nursing license she said that she was not able to obtain a nursing license but the explanation was something that her family had a disagreement with the nursing schools director years ago and even assuming that that's true that certainly is not motivated by one of the five  and also can show the type of economic deprivation that this court has found to constitute a threat to life or freedom personal an application also indicates that she did work for twenty seven years while she was in ethiopia to pharmacy assistant in twenty five or twenty seven as a medical assistant so what the b i simply found was that even taken as true everything that she provided including the explanations for what she thought contributed to the adver credibility finding what she experienced did not rise to the level of persecution and certainly the evidence before the board of immigration of appeals in the evidence before this court doesn't compel a finding one that it was motivated by one of the  and that it was also persecution so there's just simply not evidence in this record that would compel a different finding by th so what the government's position obviously is is that if there are problems with translation that she identified they were explained to the board of immigration of appeals she has not established prejudice to establish prejudice she would have to show that any of the translation errors would have had an adverse outcome or affected the outcome of the push seating and she can't do that here one because the board of immigration appeals took an alternate finding that even assuming what she said is true it doesn't rise to the level of persecution again with the b i found was more along the lines of discrimination and harassment and no one's saying that what she experienced anything was was nice or pleasant but it's simply what this court has found to be persecution it does not rise to that level of the vertical your honor i wish i knew where the tape went our off have it but our office wouldn't have it all i know is that the opposing counsel has made numerous requests to i believe the immigration court the board of immigration of appeals and perhaps the transcription service and they have not received it she can't get the original tapes do you have an obligation to look for armor to contact the other offices that might have them and search them valid i mean obviously you managed to come up with your own version of a translation of and how do we can we verify that that's correct obviously the tapes would be the best evidence to show what was interesting my question i don't have an obligation to look for the tape tape are relying on the tape to depart or don't you have an obligation to have the tape the government has responded to the request as far as me personally trying to find out where these tapes  nothing write me personally i have done nothing to find the tapes other that he stood before you come here and argue that she should be deported based on how'd the translation of these tapes in she think you you are your office should do something given that she has provided the board of immigration of appeals with her burden of what she said at the hearing the evidence of my question does your office to any obligation to provide  anything you've got you're absolutely right that the government isn't is responsible for the tapes and we can we can go into the fact that i work for the civil rights division and i'm doing this case because there's an overload of immigration cases and so that's not relevant  the obligation to search for the tapes and i believe a search has been done and what their response has been is that they cannot find and they have gone to the immigration court they've gone to the transcription service they've gone into the eye and they don't have the tape i know it's not in my office i wish we had to take me obviously i wish we had the tape because then it could be easily resolved but i think what we do have is the petitioners relation to the board of immigration of appeals shortly after the hearing she went through the transcription with another translator she didn't say that by the way i any perceived missed communications or missed translation affected the adverse credibility finding but we also have her statement let's was accompanying her asylum application and she has never said her statement was subject to mistranslations or omissions and what is in her statement simply doesn't rise to the level of persecution and that's what the immigration judge found in the board in the great and the board then gratian appeals saying if we believe your statement if we look at your brief to the i a e a if we look at the explanations you provided and if we look at the immigration hearing transcript and assume credibility and again all they're saying is that the potential miscommunications contributed to an adverse credibility finding but if we assume credibility what you experienced and what set forth in your statement and again the supplemental answers to the board it doesn't rise to the level of persecution so there were two findings that were made there was an admission credibility finding and then there was a backstop backstop even if we assume credibility what you experienced did not rise to persecution and you don't have a well founded fear of future persecution if you return to ethiopia and so based on the evidence in the record all of it that certainly does not compel a finding that she did in fact experience persecution or have a well founded fear of persecution if she were to be errors and i think the tape takes a much higher status of how necessary it is but given that there was an additional finding that even if credible even if we assume everything that happened that you didn't get a nursing license that your home was taken away and that your husband was tape that would be your husband and i don't think that she's shown that anything might happen to her husband can be attributed to her so that would go certainly for husband was applying for asylum if you can show that that was motivated by one of the five a numerated grounds but i think there's that tenuousness relationship there that she herself was never arrested i'd would like to mention one thing about the the hearsay case that i'm posing council just presented and that was what she was explaining that her daughter had been arrested the case was on as they were an asylum