that in terms of i think that we're all familiar with the facts but there are two areas in the first credibility findings that that i have concerns about in that i would like your past argument on those and the two incidents i'm thinking about is the one where there were people that came in and the son was removed and that the husband was beat at the end and the daughter was sexually assaulted and then what the discrepancy that concerns me that i can see on the record is in one instance your client said they are and the other instance she said she comes home after and i want to know why is that it's been significant from the standpoint that let's take it from a mother's perspective where your son's pulled out of the house and removed when you know whether you were there or not or you came later and then the other credibility instance that the daughter being able to return to armenia and my understanding of the daughter and you can possibly h me that well they're concerned for persecution have to do with the father's ethnicity in terms of the iranian part of it isn't the daughter half armenian and half iranian then your honor i can't because as i said it wasn't wanted out alone and i truthfully didn't even know that after viewing the past so i was prepared to talk about other discrepancies that were pointed out by the judge or in the breeze to be honest i wasn't aware  of the daughter said was don't worry so it's again it's not clear whether the daughter truly is living without problems in arm but she went back on her own right she went back there because she didn't like living in russia and the  country it wasn't specifically addressed but i believe the country reports indicated that russia also has its ethnic problems and that's why many people do not relocate there and i think most of the hospital has really gotten into my husband did relocate however for asylum tells a different story in fact time and sequence now there is that is an accurate summary of the application and the testimony is  iranian what the state department report talks about and and the i g relied on is that there is no overall there is overall healthy that's a tolerance in armenia except with respect to the very group now wou talking about in terms of credibility you didn't get to the issue of asylum and withholding because he didn't find your testimony credible so that if the court would reverse the credibility finding then the court would need to remand it to the board to address the other issues in terms of whether daughter didn't tell her that she was she said i don't know where as in her application she had said she was raped which we think is a very significant difference and we certainly go to the heart of her claim that her family and herself were persecuted because of her husband's  in society so the stories are very different many i say pointed to those as well the difference between what the state department report indicates and what her testimony was with respect to  would be a totally different case on the other hand if she could have explained it would have neutralized the whole subject matter because the big three are not all that crucial they don't they don't advance her cause one way or another but counselor who can be asking her questions doesn't mean that counsel or anyone else has realized that there has been a discrepancy or others understand the evidence they cannot guess as to what the judge is thinking and in his decision the judge did not fully analyze any of his remarks in passing as to the sound application telling different timelines so on and so forth additionally the judge did make a detailed analysis of the country conditions and  having a particular problem with that i truly don't and then it's it was i would have put it in