areas that the be addressed in upholding the hygiene is adverse credibility terminations that are before the court first the government raised the issue of exhaustion and i think for the reasons set out in the reply  brief all of these issues are plainly before the court perhaps first and foremost because as stated in for example the rodriguez castillo in decision said in the reply brief because the v a addressed these issues on the merits those  overall credibility determination also exhausts any subparts of that determination that's at page one thousand nine hundred four not five so the first area on the merits of the credibility  determination is sort of how the july two thousand and ten attack in this case began and there's two we could say subparts to that one is the issue of his briefly inconsistent testimony on cross examination as to whether the attackers called his name or not and really what he said monday you didn't know that as briefly inconsistent so you acknowledge it was inconsistent well so i guess i really don't think it's quite inconsistent what exactly happens is he's asked if he called his name he says they did and then he's asked if they knew and used his name he says i don't know and then he's asked again if they if they said his name he says yes they took my name they said my name the overall issue was how legit persecutors know who he was to attack him right in the ultimately explains that with respect to the first act he doesn't know he doesn't know they know him he doesn't know how they knew his name he does say with respect to him saying that response of i don't know whether they knew and called his name he does say they are eighty one that he didn't understand the question and that's a sort of explanation for why he said i don't know there are a number of points in th transcript where there was pretty obvious interpretation issues including sort of in that area but also between pages one as they are one of six and one which was said in the opening brief but also a number of other areas around the their motorcycle yes that's what he said about how he knew that they were hurting him and he said they demanded that he leave his party to join there so how would he know how would they know what party he was like i certainly don't know  said he doesn't and he doesn't know how they knew his name the one and the one area and thought he saw it when he was asked how his attackers recognized him as a member of the party he stated that he recognized his attack yeah i would say that's a discrepancy but i would say that as we argued in the briefs that that's a kind of quickly corrected mistake that i don't think supports the determination that was drawn here particularly because and that's sort of the language about a quickly corrected mistake as to the court's decision and ran whereas the petitioner iraqis went back and forth on the year of a baptism the government argues this is analogous to that because that's just a date but i think here i really do think it seems like a very similar very momentary slip of mine he said he was nervous about being pressed about this and although he was asked to clarify he didn't he didn't correct it immediately it was only when he was asked to as understandably you just said you didn't recognize them i think here especially because the i think it seems pretty clear in the context here which the i j a didn't address or consider where the in the second attack he did recognize the people from his village would have seen them at the good work where he was where he went to join this party and where various party events took place and i think it seems pretty clear likely from the context that he for a moment config was confused about the two attacks which he was being asked about i think in that context which the agency didn't address i think it's really quite analogous to the to the momentary mistake year of the bad news i think we're coming here all the to reach that conclusion on these facts i think to the same extent that the court that the court reached that conclusion and ran i think so i think it's very similarly a slip that as the court said and ran would be one that witnesses make in all innocence that has to be distinguished from one that really bears on the petitioners residue so that's what i'd say about that that incident the other two issues were the fact that this his second attempt to report that first july two thousand and ten attack to the police when we when he went with both his father and the village council leader that was called the star punch to try to report it and his testimony about why i really i don't see how those can be helped to support credibility determination here mission from an application of the fact that he had to go into hiding you don't think that's an important fact that would have been included well i think it's one that certainly could have been included but in the one page supplement on the application here there's all sorts of things that were included he doesn't really describe any of the events of either attack where they took place how many people there were  doesn't talk about has his which family members were involved in the party he doesn't talk about the past threats or the attack on his father so there's lots of things that were mentioned there are some important things that were but as this court said and why quoting th write much well i think that that's not nearly as baffling as i just suggested i mean i think he didn't it seems to me like the reason he didn't write out his own version of events in longhand and at length with more detail is that he couldn't write himself so he's limited to whatever information his attorney put down and his attorney chose to not prepare a sort of detailed multi page separate declaration of the kind this court sees in many of these cases and instead  limited the attorney limited herself to sort of whatever they happen to fit on that one page supplement in the application itself and i do think looking back at the courses in bun diary which is in the same page quoted in life and fourteen this is two to seven at third at eleven sixty seven at the courts or didn't i just subjective view of what a persecuted person would include in his asylum application has no place in an adverse credibility determination that id case but under the real i d act one of the requirements is that in i j although they can rely on lots of different things it doesn't have to go to the heart of the claim they have to consider the circumstances under which the statements are made that they're comparing to say it's an inconsistency or an omission i think in this context where it's very a short statement that's not a separate declaration as i just said her decision and which lots of information is a minute i think it speculative under that under that reasoning for that sort of conjecture about what he should have a version of included when it's a bit haphazard what went in there and what what didn't by the attorney i'll try to save the back binders reached the wrong conclusion in this case and in this case the petitioner has not been able to do so as we've already discussed there were numerous in consistencies in this claim excuse me his testimony was very inconsistent about this first he said he didn't recognize these people and then later one point he said well they flagged me down and stop me and signal me and then he later says wait i thought you said you don't recognize them and then at that point he said oh i was mistaken and that was i think the extent of his explanation besides fact that he was a little scared also  and so that was not a minor inconsistency and it was not correctly quickly corrected as petitioner's counsel's claims and furthermore when he said that they called his name that came out on cross examination and then he said well i don't know if they called my name when he was asked further about that and he changed his incident it's not clear what happened how you knew these people or if he knew them or if they knew him and how they recognize that he was a member of this party and that all goes to the heart of his claim that he was persecuted for being a member of his political party and then furthermore the his counsel now tries to raise translation issues where that was never raised below sorry and he mentioned it in his brief as well but he didn't stress it as as a main argument bt did raise it where it was never raised below to the to the agency and regarding the the petitioner feel to exhaust the adverse credibility i don't think that he failed to exhaust that whole issue but he raises very specific claim arguments including the fact that he argued that the i j a should have told him to to provide a detailed declaration or that is he never said that to the board and furthermore even even if he did say to the board that the solemn application clearly states that you need to provide a detailed account of what happened to you and so even if the i j a didn't tell him or you need to provide this information it's it's clear from the application itself that he needed to do so and do so and so and and regarding that omission that was an important omission it went to his fear of these people who supposedly harmed him based on his political affiliation and so that's not just a minor detail and he should have included it in his asylum application even if it was just typed in the actual application and not like a separate detailed statement i'm sorry a separate type of statement and and also finally the petitioners evidence didn't support his claim  as far as the sarpanches letter did not support the claim that the sarpanch went to the police station with him where he said first as he went with his father and then he went once and then he later said well i actually went twice and i went with my father and the sarpanch and sarpanches letter does not include that information at all and if your honour's have no further questions the government will recip is not first says i don't know and then the next page says i didn't understand the question and i think that the interpretation issue there as consistent with the many interpretation issues throughout this goes to that point so i did read that i his credibility extermination where you know especially his explanation about the sarpanch it's just doesn't lie you could kind of track it word for word that it came up in response to very specific questions on cross examination by the government attorney that he couldn't of and dissipated there's no indication that there was some sort of you know lag or time you know trying to buy time in responses questions the government attorney asking them a number of questions and he in response kind of immediately gives this information about how they went to the sarpanch after the police refused them the subbranches going to go with them his mother died he couldn't go until a week later and it seems to be quite a you know fluid information that he gives in responses very specific questions just one question about the there are multiple reasons  only upheld the adverse credibility terminations on if we were just to agree with one of those because it's really the first one i mean i'm kind of with you on the rest but the first one i think or at least arguably  is to support that one if that's all that we were to conclude is supported by the record does the decision on the law stand i think that this court in that situation could and should remain for a new analysis any credibility stands that's enough to sustain the decision those are based on that's true and i think there's even a publisher station post real id to be fair but it goes back to in quotes from pretty real id act cases in which an inconsistency had to go to the heart of the claim and i think that there's been a higher standard well it's a higher standard also means that any consistency the board could legitimately rely on had to be a major consistency going to the heart of the claim i think under that regime it makes sense that the court if they're going to uphold one of those things going to the heart of the claim would would have to uphold the determination i think here where that is no longer the case and i don't think these these i think i think here where he said they did he didn't know them and then slips up just a moment later similarly confusing it with the other incident and then immediately goes back into it he was mistaken because he got nervous i don't think that's the kind of  consistency that would have upheld a credibility termination on its own free real id so i do think under the under the new regime as the court said at least one other case i think i think would be appropriate back thank