appeals order denying her claims for asylum withholding of removal and relief under the convention against torture on the basis of an adverse credibility finding presentation warrants review for two separate reasons asylum and past persecution as opposed to withholding of removal underneath the convention against torture turning to the adverse credibility determination the b s a rested its decision on three purported in consistenc several hours for those she can certainly testified regarding the questioning the type of question she endured during her court torture session she says use asked about her or life membership who her leader what is whether they had weapons and the activities of her husband and this in no way contradicts the discrepancy from her steinem application statement that she and other prisoners were questioned about the a last upper echelon furthermore the finding regarding her father's treatment after her departure from ethiopia similarly is a manufactured ambiguity mr tech leased by her father was threatened and taken into custody and question regarding her disappearance or or i guess to departure from the country while she was under government surveillance her brother then testified that he knew her father had been questioned but did not know that with regard to government relations with l f members she noticed people around her being arrested as an excel rated rate and her brother had been and had been accepted into diversity lottery she began trying to make preparations to leave the country which i think everyone knows it's a long process a long hard process to try to come to the united states and she's testified that logically after she had been detained for two weeks and tortured that she then made the decision that it's at that later date that she became a full fledged member was visiting other ethnic around us and i weakly to distribute pro alas information educate people about their civil liberties liberties which the e p t the dates absolutely lined up with those two calendar so it's not so much that she's making out a birth date which i'm not sure would even in how it's her her claim so would this when even go to the heart of her asylum claim but discrepancy and again she did when asked consistently when asked you know there's a discrepancy here can you tell me what it was she offered a cogent explanation here i was only involved with this group but then i implementing the convention against torture it did not discuss any of the documentary evidence and indeed talks about whether she had established past persecution which she held that she had and even if her testimony that she was beaten birth certificate a minute again a birth certificate in july of two thousand and six months before anything happened right additionally we're going meet frequently between seeing the alleged beatings her counsel said you were how many times did they beat you i can i quantify in hours but they were just continuously leading me as her own words they were continuously yeah her response continues well which was just i can't quantify it in ours but they were continuously beating me which just to me well during that period lewis lasted for several hours they were continuously beating me continuously beating me over two weeks i don't think she would have said i can't tell you in the hours you're on there is not that discussion about there being one occasion that came on government crossed so that's why there wasn't there when the government says immigration judge makes an adverse credibility determination they will and only one case out of every two hundred fifty to three hundred firm and so i don't play their game with regard to credibility determinations in my view in a star america marriage hearing is analyzed on the now again this is not a direct do you i just directed to the i j a i can't tell you how many cases i have affirmed adverse credibility strong nations by j s by far the majority of cases that come before me an adverse credibility terminations made we affirm and we usually affirm them by summary disposition because it is so obvious that the i j a is correct it is a rare case where we in fact reverse the average credibility determination and i think this i g probably knows that i don't know for sure what he knows when i say what i know he says this was a standard which credibility combination one time out of two hundred fifty or three i'm not making any i'm not making a due process argument understand i'm not making a biased argument i'm merely responding to something that is in the record in this case and i wish to correct the record sure i understand i suggest perhaps an obvious i cannot speak to the immigration  i'm sorry i had to wait so long but we're finally here