decision of the board of immigration appeals with a firm decision of the immigration judge denying relief under the convention against torture for the petitioner and her children we have argued that the th based on the fact the respondent is not a credible witness and also based on the fact that the responders parents are currently living in iran and apparently not suffering any harm distances one of them being that the respondents or the petitioners father should spiritual sure himself instead of going back to iran this is not an inconsistency it fails to take into account the fact that she testified that they have been able to go back to iran without difficulty the father is two steps removed from the problem the source of the problem which was the petitioners husband the fact that the petitioner parents are elderly  situated then we should be able to consider what what they're undergoing and use that to judge your claim that's not the same situation here the parents never had difficulty in being classified as not good muslims  the father was never in present there is some dispute there it's not entirely clear she says that she was threatened that her father could be in prison the minister of record of page one twenty seven she says that if one is would come and say couldn't present her father or they were in prison her father he was not in fact imprisoned he was not beaten he was not slapped he was not threatened as the petitioner was in this case he's not similarly situated the fact that he's able to return to iran was irrelevant furthermore doesn't go to the heart of the asylum or the convention against torture claim the fact that her parents to go back even if you were to find that it's an inconsistency also put a lot of weight on the fact that the husband had applied for visas in various countries and that the wife the petitioner was unaware of that she stated several times she wasn't entirely sure what the husband had done that they communicated only by email and that he had not told her everything she did on a couple of occasions insists that he would have told her had he gone to a certain country applied for a visa but there are lots of husbands who don't tell their wives things and lots of wives who believe that their husbands tell them everything that was not an inconsistency not a reason for whether or not he suffered harm before he left and could be subjected to torture of return or that she could be subjected to torture if returned the husband as i said the evidence is clear the husband outside of iran he left the country and has been trying to find safe haven the government's evidence of applying for visas in various other countries at different consulates goes to support the fact that he is in fact trying to find safe haven somewhere it was not an inconsistency there was no  lie as that the immigration judge characterized it regarding what the husband was trying to do and where he was just trying to find safe haven additional immigration judge was impressed with the factor impact that i should say the fact that the dates from their calendar to our calendar she then though when quest attempted to give a date she tried to find a frame of reference i believe it was near the end of the war approximately one year before the war ended after the wedding of a friend she's doing what we all do to try and find a frame of reference by which she can judge when it was going back in her memory eventually she said thirteen or fourteen years ago the immigration judge inappropriately foot in his own personal experiences having served in the war and so that his wife would be able to tell exactly when he served in the war that's irrelevant it was inappropriate conjecture and speculation and and inserting of the immigration judge his own personal experience to try and judge what was going on here with the petition was not significant enough to go against the heart of the asylum the asylum claim in the waiting case we would argue here that the fact that she didn't recall the exact they that her husband served in the military again don't go to the heart of this claim and were not in fact in t i might have argued that they suffered persecution in the past if the asylum claim were here before the court but she was slapped knocked down to the ground threatened told that she would have her husband's body returned to her and her husband was in prison for six months she was interrogated repeatedly her husband was in a cold dark cell with only a dirty blankets and then when you take all of that what happened to them in the past they were people of interest to the government of iran when you take all of that in violent with what the country reports indicate that there is a widespread use of torture and other degrading treatment as well as systematic abuses including extrajudicial killings and summary executions and looked at it in light of the board's d t and could lead to torture we've got some of those factors here there is a problem with them being seen as not good muslims in iran there's a religious component to it there is also the additional component that was not present in ga that she had come to the her that when they go back to running authorities come and ask questions that she had been telling them that she was on a lest they be looking for her she has that same concerns you going to come to their attention and if that's the case the ruling in ga where the board says once you come to their attention you better look out because torture is so widespread based on the consumer reports we believe that with that as in ga there is a substantial likelihood that it is more likely than not doing the fact that he kept information from her why is that material as you pointed out your honor her current her claim is completely derivative us had of his claim and the testimony relates to the timing ability of her husband to leave iran forged documents and when it was pointed out to her well how is your brother had your husband's passport identification number which was on the these application that was submitted in singapore she acknowledged well it probably wouldn't have because she only received that information during the two most recent hearing iran and that's going to be the issue what he's doing he may be doing all sorts of desperate things to try to get into the country and she may or may not know about them and part of her claim that was based on his efforts to flee and that the trying to do certain things but that hasn't anything to do with whether he would be tortured in a way and am i right i think you are correct in terms of saying yes when you turn tortured in iran based on that i agree with you your honor we would point out as well that while the court has in asylum cases indicated that the discrepancies must go to the heart of the claim they haven't specifically held up with respect to convention against torture claims and we would two steps removed from they were living there in the same place with the wife and husband living and they were questions just like the wife was and the wife claimed that the father was even subjected to more than she was in terms of his being put in prison so they were even the f credibility irrelevant the third factor the immigration judge pointed to was the fact that despite her searching that her husband had been sent to the front line the iran iraq war to be killed she could not testify to the dates with respect to that  they being that the iraqi officials who came to her house based said they could even take let's say my father they would take my father they would put him in prison she says they said that she doesn't say they did that for him in prison that is not finding that she didn't mean her burden of proof is based on the fact that she's not a credible witness and their parents are back in iran right now but he used the fact it appears are back in iran as part and parcel of his credibility finding that's the first point of his credibility finding  t was all tied up together finally your honor i would not quote from a record that is not from a state department report that is not in the record the ninety nine report is quoted in a matter of ga i was quoting from the ninety six record of the department reported that page five