of your difficult rocks to push uphill are the standard review and each of us in terms of an adverse credibility and whether it compels a different result there's no doubt that someone could have believed her and if they had believed her and the government appealed we i think the question now in the same way and then it looks like they kind of left her alone for a while but then she got three drunk driving is broke that is going to change or that that doesn't really told her how dangerous it was and she just kept doing it and that as a judge that's a frightening concept regardless of whether someone's a status and or not a citizen you know yes  went through and said there was inconsistent season there was some possibilities and one of the things that i think i just said was impossible was this whole thing about her brothers having to leave because they were used to being guerrillas and that  evidence so if the b a adopts the adverse credibility finding don't we need to look at their record as a whole and see if that if that supports it and that would include even stuff to be mentioned but if it's evidence in the record which these things that i j pointed to that supports the adverse credibility and the issues were as the board summarized the average credibility in terms of the omission of the abuse that she claimed she had there other issue on which stevens who relied was a lack of corroboration and petitioner did not corroborate her claim of eight years of being kidnapped and being held for sexual abuse contrary to the brief she was given notice that she needed to corroborate her claim at the hearing in september th seen the judge told her he expected her to corroborate their client and continue the hearings for a month so that she could do so with a hearing continued she presented her father's death certificate and the birth certificates of her two sons who were born in nineteen million eight hundred and ninety two thousand and one while they may show that her father had likely didn't murder been murdered it's not been any way show that he had been murdered by her your position that they that the sister here waive that or that or it didn't seem like you raised that so you didn't challenge it his way you know we didn't challenge it is way we distinguish the cases and the other thing about those issue of a petition waiting two years to reveal what had happened to order and they each gave tosswill explanations as soon as they gave had the omission why they didn't give it for example in a lucid case her mother corroborated that she was afraid to talk about what happened to her sexually because of their standing on the child and community for one was not enough to claim she was embarrassed and and i think i think she believes that the immigration officers look like the police which were the ones that abuse her and guatemala if you do that on the record however she did not st give the explanation that she was ashamed she st said she didn't remember she said several times she didn't remember what she told inside last year and then she claimed that yes there was the issue that he was wearing a uniform but it was only after leading questions from her counsel to which both government counsel and the judge and gestured that she claimed that she had also felt some shame so we submit that on that basis it's distinguishable from the and it's like a motion to reopen so that petitioner has the burden of showing that the information is new and could not have been discovered sooner and the immigration judge in the board determined that it wasn't  she had p t s d since nine hundred and ninety four that she would not have mentioned at some point along the way that a condition was from reading her from remembering or from giving a full account and she did not do so so we submit on that did not submit that to the board so that issue was weighed and that was the only other relief that was mentioned the asylum withholding of removal and cat protection which is over the adverse credibility determination that then cancellation  were there were multiple grounds to give at risk that ability finding and so only one of them dealt with the sexual abuse finding and so i don't think we if we don't we don't necessarily have to address the sexual abuse finding