supposed to expire and then asked on page two forty seven of the record when the lease actually expired these are two different questions and therefore there can be no it consists the when she provided two different answers she provides an answer to the first question that the other state of the date of the rape that's that's more significant is that yes your honor she was not internally she was internally consistent throughout her hearing about the actual date of that hearing that  ninety eight that would indicate that the family stayed in fiji without being harmed for another year and four months whereas if it was january of ninety nine it would only be seven months and there's a little court testimony she testified that there was a to leg and they tried to rape me it appears just by reading this although we cannot really confirm based on what's before us that the interviewer and the interviewer and their leaders lead petitioner are talking about two different hours we'll hear from the government reliability because the there was no evidence that that the asylum applicant had an opportunity to comment on the evidence at the end of the interview in this case at the end of the interview the place before this time officer and she said no i have nothing further i asked for a language interpretation another problem in the same case which was not of her here contrary to what my posting counsel just said his off furthermore the assessment to refer and the question and answers were created contemporary contemporaneously they were done at the same time so so whatever current confusion there may appear in the question and answers those are straightened out in the contemporaneously written assessments to refer so there was absolutely no problem with the immigration judge as reliance on the asylum officer documents pursuing through eight c f r section twelve forty point seven and immigration judge may rely on prior evidence in the record  pretty incidental pretty minor is that it's not it's not crucial to this carries with the rape making the issue may be more significant well your honor i'm not sure that i see that the same way but let me ask your question about we don't know we don't know what happened and so we don't know why this family stayed in the country for as long as they did for example if it happened in hundred ninety eight and this was the trigger for the for the family leaving the country they didn't leave until august of nineteen ninety nine was whether it was attempted rape broken glass or something else it's because because those two factual allegations the way they are planned hang together mr top claim that work true that would be a lot but the but the issue really before the court is whether the immigration judge was compelled to believe the eight or nine times or the test more about eight or nine times or the testimony about one time whether there is sufficient evidence in the record that it would be unreasonable for the immigration court for the immigration judge to to  i'd like to make that to clarify really the decision on the fact finding that is on review before the court is not the board's decision but the immigration judge's decision because jeans that she was that she and her daughter were being to the point of bleeding that her foot was cut by a ball that it just mr head these are the her testimony is credible and she should have had an opportunity to pursue a