the arguments thinking the records in this case establishes that discord should reverse the board of appeals and immigration judges decision a flock of credibility because in every instance without inquiring why there is an inconsistency by speculating what judge considered to be reasonable or not floored armenian police by not considering contra condition reports and other supplemental documents in their entirety and by failing to consider the relevant parts of alice's testimony and also by surprising decision that she has not produced some evidence without giving an opportunity for her asylum application during one of the incidents representatives of our government attacked her and also made an attempt to rape her there are several reasons why immigration judge and board of appeals should not have found  she has not made this change when she was making administrative changes at the beginning of the hearing second of all this is just there was an important incidentally where i mean and government found petitioner to anti government information they heard her the only extra evidence she said that they started ripping her clothes off as if they were attempting to rape her and then she ran away she was able to escape this is the only and then made an alternative holding which still didn't seem to resolve the question of whether or not if one believes everything she said it amounted to persecution do you think we can decide that if you think when you turn a man that if we otherwise agree scene she certainly doesn't go into any specific detail but worst kind the conflict is that the incident described in her silent application is clearly a minor incident as compared to during her testimony the it's a minor incident versus a major incident and she was given a chance prior to testifying to go all through the content of the application into mind you know she may still such a minor incident because it was an incident that involved the violation of her rights but it didn't rise to the level of having her clothes rigged and having to fight back her attackers by kicking one of them and biting him and running away and while she was running away she was shouting blood so this is a question there's certainly there's nothing in here that says some things detail so the point where all the details are in the application but what she left out of the application was not a mere detail it was a major events that right to the heart of her claim that she was physically past but but i've had one happen without the other the real difference though is when she went on to say that her clothes were ripped sheath perceive that the attacker was attempting to rape her had the intention to rape her and all of this happened after the police had left the scene according to her testimony yet in her written statement she indicates that the police left the scene and following that she was able to flee the scene she did not indicate that her stare was pulled up to that point their clothes were ripped that she attacked back her she had to after even though she was given the chance before the hearing to change her statement and her response to him i believe was that she did tell the interpreter about this incident and then later she was asked by her own attorney why her written statement include the information about the perceived attempted rape and the tearing of the clothing and she then indicated and insisted that she did tell the preparer of her application about this and that she had i believe even written this out but that it was not then put into the written statement that was prepared for her by the application prepare she did not indicate during the course of the hearing that her failure to include this information in progress now cation had anything to do with her being embarrassed or with her cultural background not allowing her to disclose an incident as humiliating a been in effect since one thousand nine hundred four there's really no evidence in the country conditions reports that being the state department reports and the reports that the petitioner submitted indicating that large numbers of armenian young men were being forcefully conscripted into the army and being killed in large numbers that's just not anywhere in the record there are there is an indication that that there were their situation and were living in armenia but certainly there is no evidence that the young men from armenia who were not natives and citizens of armenia were being forcefully conscripted in large numbers and killed and not returning from the front lines or that the ceasefire was a farce and was not really true the report simply do not reflect that additionally the country condition reports and documents submitted by the petitioner reflects that the overwhelming majority of the armenian population in armenia support of support for their position your honor i believe though that in all of the various documents that were submitted even by the respondent for background indicate this support by the armenian community for background information and the fact that there is the support it was it was unreasonable for her to conclude that when she would interview people that one hundred percent of the students would agree with her position eighty percent of the people on the street would agree with her position and also finally the petitioner indicates that the armenian government is the equivalent of the mafia and there's absolutely no evidence in the country reports that supports this at all the petitioner attempts it seems supposedly submit some kind of documentation about this on the date of the hearing however the immigration judge wifely did not accept this documentation because she had been warned twice previously at other administrative hearings that such evidence would have to be submitted at least two weeks in advance of the hearing thank you very much