from india during that time frame now to these areas are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record the third is based on just pure speculation and conjecture by the immigration judge and the final one is also not supported by the record but more importantly i think it's whatever questions he asked for me i answer those only question does that mean you didn't tell the asylum officer that you're with the three men answered specifically i did not it's grown a presumption to conclude from this exchange was the only evidence in the record about what question this course credibility there is other areas that you mention as well which obviously immigration judge consider this to be the most serious yes yes definitely and it's not supported by substantial evidence in the record record on page thirty three of the extractor records she was asked what was his job answer he was the driver in the police station there's no difficulty hesitation and then she continues for the next question and that remain his job throughout his proof police career after first he was not in the initial stages he was a constable then he did got get some training and then he became a driver which is not struggling here is not having any difficult issues explaining in more detail about what the nature of the duties were that he had at the police office that i want to guess about regarding her husband's duties it's an area that really requires a close examination of the record the immigration judge have a lot of concern about  define his superiors for a twelve year period of time didn't have any problems until the end when that is not wouldn't quite testify to the next area the judges have a credibility finding is regarding whether or not painkillers are appropriate raised an argument this morning that this court really has answered that question in the falcon corish case from a year and a half ago i think judge silverman you were on that panel that is the reason why we have not although we asylum withholding a removal or protection under the catch the immigration judge rejected her claims because she have serious reservations about and because of changed country conditions this court must determine whether her decision in the i jes to certain decision was supported by reasonable substantial impro let's look then under this within this system of review ask the particular items that have just been raised by the petitioners house what's your what's your strongest point on rifle credibility i think probably the strongest point is that great testimony that there was only one rapist when the declaration was written and four years later there were three demonstrating the possibility at least that here was someone who was trying to make a more compelling case before the judge and unfortunately destroying credibility in the process is she was right i want officers well your honor i would certainly think so i guess it's hard for me to to make a determination on that point but when you're trying to look at wh someone is credible you look at whether it's things that ought to really stick in their minds are changing in in time and here are some things that she wasn't changing she when she wrote in the application that he used a result or that was a figure of speech implying more than one person but if it doesn't read that way certainly in her declaration and i'll read from that declaration which is in the record page gunpoint i mean these are things that that she signed on to he did everything what he can think for his pleasure he used me as a whore he forced me to do immoral things you would think when trying to make a compelling case that if three men were involved in this all three government employees and all three government officials that this would be something that would have been put in that original statement then there's the question which hasn't yet been discussed by opposing counsel of where this current went before you go to that the immigration judge considered the reference to the two other men as the most glaring discrepancy or if we disagree with you and the immigration judge and believe that there was no inconsistency or they can be reconciled and that she was describing disagree with him on a well most glaring it can serve if there are five i think serious issues that have been raised that is one of them and certainly it weakens the government's case if you determine that one of those five i i i think the second issue with this comes close to the first in terms of of importance and that's the question of where mr karr went and when she went there after the date of the alleged r obviously if she was so traumatized by that rape that she immediately left her hometown so that this would not be likely to happen again that would be really significant what she said in her in her original declaration though was that she went back home and stayed there for the next five months living with her parents and that was the same location where her father allegedly had been had been attacked by the same police when she got one four years later before the i j a she said oh no this isn't what happened i left within a week and i went that discrepancy can't tell what is true and what isn't how if that doesn't throw some doubt on the credibility of this petitioner then i'm not quite sure what would that's a serious very the third matter has been raised by opposing counsel and that's the evidence of treatment for the rape the parents and i think the element of that that is that seems to be the most significant is that she could not get any testimony that she was ever treated for rape it wasn't just the type of treatment it was that she said her parents couldn't get the doctor to indicate that you've even been in the hospital and she didn't submit shore up these statements that she was making and certainly were she said it's not enough to corroborate her husband's please no i don't think that as a matter of law she had to but it would certainly have strengthen her case in a situation where there was so much doubt being thrown on her testimony and as to that issue i mean we've heard that she was that she had called him a driver he was asked to make arrests he never did that and interestingly he never did that during the period of time when sikh hindu tensions were at their highest it was only after that period was over in one nine hundred ninety six that suddenly when everything in the punjab is quiet everything gets up to an elevated level of difficulty and i would just raise one other point that in the in the affidavits that was the clyde by her father and her uncle she made or they made a very interesting statement i mean here she is a woman who left her husband her parents her children behind and she has her father write him and say please b r k please i asked allow my daughter in so we c reunite the family now that is bizarre and i don't know quite what to make of it but we suggest that the way to reunite this family is for this car to join the rest of her family who as far quite different than the end of police abuses and in the i just decision and the only consideration of country conditions information is with regard to this court's request relief under the un convention against torture the only other point at which the i j a mentions country conditions it is saying that the testimony is inconsistent with no country conditions there's no consideration of how inconsistent there's no mention or analysis of the country conditions no way to determine whether or not the immigration judge use that information in a proper fashion in determining my