that the documents were fraudulent but seem to concede that they were in fact prachi life as she now contend that the analysis in the consular and forensic reports is incorrect that's correct so now she says that they weren't project yes that's exactly what i mean for me for her position was that she just didn't know they were fraudulent well that's what we are hearing in our motion to well she always said that she didn't know how these document what evidence have you presented that they aren't praja what ok per the document that the immigration judge based is his decision on the on the state department letter that was issued by the consular officer who kind of described what the investigation revealed but however if you look at the document itself it's not really an investigation report it's just a summary of somebody going to verify documents that they should be illegally so it's that kind of a catch twenty two situation where you carry lie and statements like that and then you come to the state did exactly that you went to the local credible and got in and off the the government has conducted a very thorough investigation they had identified which police department they went to which floor do you had a good day talk to they had gone to the residences where the response had an edge he had lived they had photographed the places so it looked like american agents had gone to the job and in this case is totally done based on any letters from the department of state whether we like it or not it's ok then that the documents are fraudulent i don't think that this court should rule and in such a way in this case actually this is a pretty real id act case and the good the judge should have actually taken and looked at the entire evidence she he couldn't have even considered the documents until she was very stressed during the hearing she had taken medication self prescribed medication rejected medication to setting her so that she could withstand the questioning and then there was an took a lot of interpretation problems so the interpreter over and over is that i can't keep up with them i can't understand and the judge didn't even try to address these issues once the judge started the department of state letter basically made up his mind he said that's it she's lying and so he can't do that he has to take the entire heat he relied on inconsistences what he called inconsistency is what she said them well i think that the i j a made there were aside from the consular reports the i j a felt that there were project medical history simply stree reports that most s c n submitted that related to her past persecution or fear future curse persecution also the i j a felt that she failed to offer a satisfactory explanation about f and dates and the name of the pharmacy in her travel from armenia and also that she kind of shifted the description about the contents of the summons which all of those would go to the heart if if if believed and so you have to say that the record would have to compel another conclusion now admittedly there might be other explanations but does it compel another  the judge looked at it another way so if they're both and the judge was the one that was sitting there looking at when she was testifying so i'm not sure it compels except in what she says as opposed to what trier of fact determined i mean that that's i mean we have to you know we have to step away from that we're not looking at the witnesses so it's got to compel as opposed to just ok there's two ways we can go up to the judge in his told me that several times and that just just because i keep repeating it and saying that latter doesn't make me mean i'm right but so that i think the fact that you keep saying that you know you're right about inconsistency as are some things that you look for  but people can cling to a lie and that doesn't make it true i'm not sure i understand what he's asking me what you're saying she you know i mean i didn't feel she was consistent interesting the first thing that we should note is that although the petitioner has complained about the overseas consulate report she has never complained about the forensic report there's not one instance where this circuit presently but whether that remains far away all the other circuits have looked at it differently than the ninth circuit right now based on and off so if let's say you can't consider if it turns out that you can't consider the consular reports is there sufficient evidence to support the i j a apart from our more than sufficient evidence can you can you outline  november how can the reports be accurate if in fact they don't have the same date but that's not what you want to have asked you want to ask but the inconsistency as well are what supports take out nov sixteenth that she was terrified she was going to be stopped at the airport that she had to get out so she took a train to georgia to the a limit conses blysse but it's a hard worker us but only really took a train there she stayed in that city for a month with her relatives then a quarter of flight to moscow then from moscow came to united states the reason she did that was because she was terrified she'd get stopped at the airport that's what she says in her asylum application when she testified she totally changed the story she said you know i went to tbilisi one day i was unhappy but it was always my intent to return to or mean here what happened was in november of two thousand and one i received a notice from one of my neighbors  there and if you wish i have all those sites but they're in the really the problem with that they're totally inconsistent with it then go to the next inconsistency or implausibility in that he left the country there was nothing remaining why then would they visit him her a year later to testify against him and yet that's the reason she testified that she was afraid to return to armenia that she needed a she's got now is going asian for in fact when she was asked about this often times she just hesitated and didn't want to draw an immigration judge noted that in his decisions now she's complained that there were translation errors or those problems with the interpreter she never claimed that in the court she never really is the issue to the immigration judge said there was any problem she never raised on appeal to the board she also says i was of medicating on some sort of russian drugs but in her testimony to the immigration judge she said i took the drugs to calm me down she never said that they confused her or that they impeded  judge or to the board now she also says well i have post promised rest stress it will there is evidence that we can see that she did bring a psychologist but interestingly the psychologist never said that that would include her ability piedra ability to testify that it would confuse her that wasn't any part of her testimony moreover the psychologist was not aware of the fraudulent documents and i understand you are saying ask me to separate those out under saying that when she made her assessment she was aware that she was aware of the change dates so it's interpretations but that's not the standard of review for this court the standard review is does the evidence come help culturally conclusion no in either case what you just look at the rather have pointed out saying something does not necessarily in surely doesn't compel a culturally conclusion now moving back just for a second to the documents in this case is a much stronger submitted the second set of documents and other police report another medical record as i as i've said earlier the medical record that he submitted the second time different from the medical records first time had a different hospital that by the way happened she submitted a four seconds of the fraudulent documents are january twenty sixth two thousand and seven with the forensic report on april fourteenth two thousand age she said i need a chance to look into this return he said that then on june thirteenth two thousand her attorney declined to go but the forensic report he basically said i got nothing and moved on from there what that says and what it shows us report another could have been shielded no information whatsoever despite being asked where did you get these reports at first he said i'm nothing to tell you because that the judge took a look at all that and said that's just not sufficient to show that you did not have now which surely if you got these documents the first time why she would back these documents she could have done the statement documents this was the insistence is when you put the more together the record certainly does not compel the conclusion that she was credible that's where the immigration value the earth according to not overturn that find to go back to our media today and counsel also mention that the the fact that why would the government want her to come and testify about a case that had already been closed against m millisecond set of documents she clearly relying on other people she just called is it can you can you send me some more documents and they went to the same places and they got the same documents perhaps the armenian government