traumatically the questioning that occurred basically it was very unfair the judge speculated it was due to a personal reason she was raped which loses the context of when somebody is being controlled and being raped that it has nothing to do with sex that was completely lost on the immigration j my client bar their head in shame and humiliation and the judge felt that was that a vase of response that a woman should not by our head and shame and humiliation when she's being raped that was the reason for her adverse credibility finding and was being of a certain according to the judge's reasoning in covering her face i don't know how she reaches that but that's the judge as the hearing was done completely incorrectly and a violation of my client's  fifth amendment rights she was asked at each time to go operate she wanted my client to bring in the smuggler smuggler into the country she immigration judge said when my client got married in the united states why isn't your husband here to describe describe  my client's rape in an indian jail what does she need her husband over here i mean i just and the need of the witnesses that you require were completely unfair  refugee and she was smuggled into the united states by somebody driving a vehicle she was only there for two or three days she sank a letter through her attorney to the canadian authorities requ information any information they may have that when she landed in canada that she could walk a passport and apply for asylum that's what she said she can fly she said and she did she did making quite she did she can she contacted them they rejected her contract and said we want a specific document signed by you the government in the meantime didn't need to do that two different procedures going on here the government doesn't check up on somebody called minute call which isn't my signed the document waiving any rights that she had in order to establish her position with respect to canada so that and the fact that it's the government's it's the government's burden if could have followed simple white what she had to do that one paper and that paper would have given the government the opportunity to establish that piece of paper who is going to investigate it where is the investigation going to be to occur holloway asked the united states government and attorney to verify her birth certificate asked to comply with them to verify her stay in canada they were unable to she wasn't going to get a blanket agreement to somebody who she didn't know where her parents like the content of that document are you saying that if she arrest that happened where the alleged rape occurred she gave two different statements about her state of consciousness which is really not i mean i read that really carefully and she said that she came and then she said during the hearing of march two thousand and three she said she became unconscious after the break and that is now where she confronted with a yes she was and what did she say she said that she was never there was an extensive colloquy about this on the record in a ministry of record cites two forty nine two fifty three  she testified to what happened during the rape she said that she was not unconscious during the rape rape point she was confronted with the earlier statement where she said that she had had an unconscious  herself i think this statement came during direct examination and neither miss carr's counsel herself nor anyone else wanted to ever felt it was necessary to make that kind of distinction you don't want in an ordinary trial if you want to point out to a trial you are a fact that there's been an inconsistency the very first question you ask is is it your testimony that and then the witness says yes no i don't know i don't recall well there was not even there was a follow up but in this instance on this one year we are sort of laboring it was never ask your testimony that you were unconscious during the rape i think that kind of questioning did not happen at the nine hundred ninety eight carrying because there was not an apparent inconsistency at that point nor were they asked  the hearing he was asked in the two thousand and three hearing where when she said that she was alert when the rape occurred she was specifically asked on cross examination by government s beaten during the first round there in her testimony at the two thousand and three hearing she said she was not beaten and she was asked about that  she does not specifically mention the first  pointed to the hip they were pension me and a question and that's all they did to you is that right answer yes and then just as the government's counsel questioning then she points out well according to your declaration in your attachment to form i five eighty nine that's the asylum application it says that you were beaten at the police station can you explain that if she says the first time i don't remember whether they beat me but they try to molest me and then the immigration judge begins to question about the inconsistency that he'd only been arrested twice the letter from the all sikh indian federation says that he was arrested three different times and i think the reason that this is relevant is it raises some question as to whether this is the same person and what the relationship between the applicant here and the person spoken about in the all sikh indian federation letter and in fact this is her the aliens identity is a significant issue in this case because she herself was not politically active and she it was her brother and she has essentially claiming basing her claim on asylum because of what happened to her alleged brother so having her identity  stablished is significantly important and that is why the inquiry to the canadian authorities was very important there really is no evidence in the record other than her own testimony as to what her identity was one way to prove that would had been and that she in fact was mansion or cow or was to get information from the canadian authorities she testified in her own words when she entered canada authorities during the course of this investigation inquired of canadian authorities if they had any information about a man injured a car they sent back information saying this is the only information we have it related to an entirely different person everyone agrees  was not this alien then ours counsel wrote to canadian authorities asking for any information about a mansion or our the canadian authorities wrote back and said we information that was asked in the attorney's request is in the record is information that the canadian authorities had on manjinder coward that would not have had any and that what that would have related to was her the dates and i do want to say that you know there aside from her testimony really and and a first certificate that she submitted to the record which was not authenticated in accordance with was getting this document certified you know appropriate fashion and that it was by an appropriate individual and that was her responsibility to do that ok our questions of taking you way over your time thank you for your