four bases upon which the bases that her credibility finding are clearly erroneous and must be overturned the crux of the case is the crux of the adverse credibility determination comes down to an issue the i g cited regarding a perceive stated in the record and the i i j however took issue with the fact that there was a second affidavit written by petitioners father who was the nephew of the father the cousin again of the petitioner saying that they were the numbers party even and even today it's totally possible for a member to be a member of the federation and the akali dal party in fact it's common for you to start off as a college student as a member of the federation and then become a member of the party the parties are both seek nationalist parties to book peacefully advocate for the creation of college done then they continue to work together and support the same candidates almost always in elections in local and national elections their objectives are almost almost they don't i don't think it's analogous to the trust gets in the installer's party because it is they actually do do support each other's objectives today they are separate parties today they originated from the same party more likely you're a member of both it is yes it today as well as in the ninety's it's completely possible and it's supported by background documents and this was actually explained by the petitioner to one fifty three  first of all i'd like to point out the judge misstated the record when he said that the petitioner are actually he was confronted and asked about the explanations fifty three of the administrative record in the judge's decision he said the petition was confronted about th explanation and he remained silent this is not a fair review of the record the petitioner was confronted once by the judge and when he was confronted by the judge he gave an explanation that's at page one forty two of the administrative record and i'll quote from the re english so he didn't actually understand the contents of the affidavit or review them before he was presented with the with the affidavits in the contents there in in court but more important than this is that one fifty three of the administrative records where he explains  away from this testimony and ask him about a completely unrelated issue and doesn't allow him to fully explain this this portion of his testimony and this is significant because case law under corporations ashcroft and  thousand and four cases that an i j is required to give a petitioner an opportunity to explain any perceived discrepancy here he didn't give him an opportunity to explain and he misstated the record by saying that he remained silent the i did petitioner did not explanation for the dust discrepancies the i g thinks he sees that's exactly the situation the i g has put this panel in today you're required having to speculate as to whether these discrepancies have been explained because the i j a misstated the record by saying he didn't he just remain silent didn't explain anything well that's not a fair review of the record the record shows us that he has two explanations and the i g wouldn't give him a four but you need to explain this discrepancies but even if this court today decides not to overturn so the fact that we don't know why they were looking for the cousins leads us to speculate that this might go to the motive of the police but we don't know why they were looking for it it may or may not have been involved in some way of a particular culture from country reports and other permissible sources and i'm thinking i wasn't joking i don't know what my cousins politics are i have pretty strong the fact that there was lack of credible evidence supporting this petitioners admission into the student federation digvijay found that the letter submitted on behalf of the petition point there was raising not just the letter itself but the city whether she belonged to this group or not he first said that he personally knew this individual the president of the organization and then retracted that later only upon cros reports in this case indicate that the student federation petitions in this case are often fraught with fraud and fraudulent documentation so the question as to whether or not do you personally know mr gill yes if you were to call him now and ask him about you would he recognize your name it's since it's a long time and you're not sure about this how long were you active member of the student a member in ninety five at the testimony with respect to each of the arrest incidences not one of those instances did it did mr gill testify was based on his affiliation with the federation in fact the only reason given by inconsistent he was asked you know who signed it and he said well it was mr gill and then he was asked if he asked a couple other questions if well there he told his secretary to write the letter so it was he was as he said that he was just clarifying his testimony the letter came through his father his father requested it he changed it and again he does page one into the record we know he doesn't read or speak or understand in english this is significant he didn't know the contents of the letters so he simply was telling them that he got the letter from