immigration judge and also the board of immigration appeals the honors the the the adverse credibility of finding was based on three alleged additional abortions but the a failure to mention them does not need gave the fact that she suffered past the persecution based on forced abortion and also be a lower tribunals reliant on two cases from this fall one the the shell the other is wrong both cases clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case in the shell second case was that the in the recent statement the pits the the pics fission are not mentioned that his wife was forced to have an abortion and he resisted it to the forced abortion she did not mention that i believe are crimes that education level is no higher than highest even college educated people if you ask him or her to write an account of instances events twenty years ago it could be an exhausting task and after she finished this this piece of writing she could say oh i accomplished a lot but she she was not aware that she missed the something three abortions as she testified to them why only put one down i mean who didn't understand the application is asking her it was specific to her request for relief was and yet that's a good that's in the forced abortion in the past  by the government that she was forced to have an abortion in the past she mentioned in one thousand nine hundred four incidence i mean but she did not to mention other incidents but your honor but the that the other other instances does not negate the fact that her claim of past rigid persecution based on family planning policies and the second delay she provided to medical records medical a booklet of medical records showing that she received it a doctor because of other complaints and in the history of medical history there was mentioned that she would she had passed an abortion one one or more than one but regardless whatever she told the doctor the doctor just put one in there has nothing to negate the fact that she she she has she was forced to have abortions in the she forgot about it and the judge said that that's not a reasonably explanation your honor i'm not sure whether she said he was old she might think that her husband was biological to ald she might have deemed that her husband was an old fool who had neglected deed that the events of her life and nick that neglected all the details concerning her life but fuss the husband was away from from her and i don't think it was reasonable to require a husband to state in detail this kind of and the two cases relied on the on by the that the board of appeals and also that immigration judge does not do not want an adverse credibility find as my opposing counsel is stated this case involves on mainly the issue of post real id at credibility the government feels that saying has not demonstrated that the record compels the conclusion that she testified credible credi and as the government dispute at least one does the government dispute all well there was the second discrepancy between the dates for the first abortion and that was the government dispute that she had at least on forced abortion i don't think that the board actually determined whether or not she had one abortion or not if she did she would be entitled to a presumption correct and then you know if if she did ok right that  and that's not really much of a descriptor so it's not a great discrepancy but the fact that your entire case hangs on so on this one possibly th abortion it does it doesn't make sense that they would have that in tune and i think the greater discrepancy is that she didn't publish or claim when she got up to testify  in those kinds of cases i think the board is left with an the the agency is left with an inability to to determine exactly what happened because there there is this embellishment there is this discrepancy of the crab ration that she submitted didn't support her claim much less compelling and i think that's where the main issue lies medical documentation but the main issue really is her credibility and going back to the agency not being able to fundamentally believe the story how do you think it changes if it was accepted that she had at least one forced abortion and that would then create a rebuttal presumption that there would be a well founded fear of future persecution and then you would have to establish that that that didn't find any didn't give her any presumption just found that she couldn't be she wasn't credible enough to accept and therefore did not make her case right she didn't meet her burden of proof which winslade credible testimony so to say that though he would have had her or her the judge would have had to have disregarded had really basically found that couldn't tell if she ever even had a forced abortion because it's clear isn't it if there is a forced abortion she does determination just in in conclusion and if there's no other questions i just wanted to say that the respondent respectfully request that the court deny the petition for review because thing is not demonstrated that the record compels a decision contrary to that of the agents and so her her difficulty is that our credibility in the eyes of the i j a is impaired because she mentioned the other two abortions if she had never mentioned with your be much in the way of challenging her credibility that would be up to the agency in the first instance and i can't really speculate with they and the immigration judge just a question of this this woman just very vigorously and asked her why didn't you mention the three women came to your home to take you to the hospital why didn't and this kind of questions she might have provided in sensible answers but under the circumstance of the atmosphere of the hearing a woman of her education may not be able to cope with the questioning mention that the other two abortions in the recent statement is important but i don't think it is much more significant than