whether there was sufficient evidence to overcome their burden to show past persecution the court must independently evaluate each grounds cited by the i j a for his adverse credibility finding it must be supported by substantial evidence and must go to the heart of the claim of his duties were to be a guard but not that he was in combat now assuming that was that he was in the military but whether he was in the military navy wonder or ninety one doesn't make a difference we do have objective evidence that shows a within the military until nine hundred eighty one however that's not to the heart of the claims are the claim have to do with past persecution has to do with the how he was persecuted status that i two so you told the asylum officer things that you knew were not true is that correct yes yes your honor he's admitting that he lied that's correct you can do with a judge his explanation he said he was nervous he said he felt that he was unconscious for a lack of eloquence on his part he says someone help them fill out the application somebody that wasn't an attorney and they discovered after the fact there was riddled with mistakes now there's no evidence in the record here that the asylum officer told them you can make amendments to your application for you think you know he went to the interview he was he says we explanation provided the question for the court but we couldn't get past that the court focused on the solemn interview and just and did he considered all the other evidence that was provided he was candid with the court  in the kid in ninety one but if he's if he's there from ninety one that means the status was that was a military person and he doesn't qualify terms of his political beliefs right but there was objective evidence in the record did then with an attorney could have easily been informed and could easily make the amendment and then swear through the changes there's nothing in the in the record nothing preventing the government to provide the notes or some documentation from the office or any kidding that that was in the in the court record which is part of the evidence but i'm talking about the admission that he lied that came out in cross examination after he had been tendered to the government house well i believe that is correct i believe that the government of the government in cross went into greater detail here was whether he had adequate or credibly explain himself and you know he was an eloquent but if you look at all the circumstances you could easily understand why he did what he did and it didn't help his claim it didn't really help this claim the fact  whether he was just military this is the issue we i think we understand your position counsel your time has expired i think you will hear from the government circumstances i think that's right and i think here i mean the the questions i mean who has more information about what happened in terms of his military service and what happened with the also when the threats began at one point and then instead of record one forty two forty three he said and nineteen eighty eight only after his brother was killed and after he left him while he was in the military or at a considerably later time are related to that and particularly what contacts that he had with film when he wasn't it was harry was it significant was it was he trying according to him anyway he was exposed to lots of threats but no harm ever followed this was true before i left in september of ninety one he returned for about six months ninety one ninety two still no harm his wife went back on a number of trips are still no harm those trips are mentioned the record at one fifty eight sixty two and one ninety in in summary the evidence here does not compel any conclusions contrary to to the board the material inconsistency is sufficient for the average credibility finding and