blower because they thought he had files that his relative had which shed light on government corruption and the  sixty five of the record his counsel asked where is your wife today he responded in your event and counsel asked have you had any contact with her since you left armenia answer no my friend has been in touch to be able to get some documents so the question of where the wife was at the time is not one that is up in the air it is one on which petitioner testified there are two issues here that the i j a correctly ruled that the petitioner has taken one of the most important events in recent armenian history the assassination of a number of politicians of a number of different political parties including his second cousin high amount of conjecture kind of case i j reads into situations certain kinds of  within limits i think we probably will go along with that but in this case the findings on implausibility are frequent and not entirely supported  incriminating information with regard to the president of the country in the second whether he would be released to get that information in a police state but the i j i just opinion makes the point that the entire account riddled with inconsistencies and implausibilities and and that he was citing examples of these but the entire account was not one to be credited in light of the fact that this is one of the seminal events in recent armenian national history is the thing that has been investigated by n g o s and the press and the state department country reports says that n g o s have a right to robustly investigate and report their findings and because of the second cousin was targeted because of the investigation the petitioner actually knew of these documents the documents  question here is one that once you look at the way petitioner story changed the way the story changed from the airport interview to the declarations the declaration and the corrected declaration and then his testimony which w by people who kidnapped him and wanted to know about his cousin's finances wanted documents on his cousin's finances and he had no idea what they were talking about in his testimony before the i j a he says he was approached in kidnapped the very in the first instance he says i don't have any idea what documents you're talking about but i'll go try and get them in the second instance when he testifies about again he describes the sort of documents that were requested entirely differently not as dealing with his cousin's finance investigation but i told them i would go get the documents and then i didn't come back and it took two totally different descriptions of the seminal event in his claim one in the declaration one in his oral testimony it seems it seems from the i just perspective that he watched this story change from from airport interview to first declaration to correct a declaration which changed the fact that it was a historical fact the question of whether high government official had been committed suicide had been assassinated i think that it's unclear why that changed she has no explanation for why the historical facts changed and then it changed this story changed again as i just described in going through the oral seminal events in armenian national history recent armenian national history and there it's been investigated fully by n g o s and by the international press and the state department even comments on it in there in the country report and yet there is no c song which is one of three at third fourteen eighty two where the petitioner there was approached and attempted to be impressed into the into a local kidnappers was to procure these documents or knowledge of the where booth whereabouts of petitioner's uncle there is no suggestion that he was persecuted before they allegedly came to know that he had knowledge of these documents he concedes in his brief before the b i a that work he to get the documents and turn them over the persecution would so literally the only thing he has conceded themselves that would they be very much political documents are certainly political but they are not his knowledge of the documents does not depend on any political  position of his own it's something he came to know of it certainly seems he testifies that it doesn't matter if it's someone of his party who has knowledge of the documents i'm sorry i take that back his expert testified that it didn't matter who it was who had knowledge of these alleged documents whether that person was a member of the armenian national government or of some other party those people are in danger anyone with knowledge of these documents he variety of of political groups but there was no evidence of use that the reason he was targeted was because of his membership in that political group as opposed to his knowledge of where the documents are a nonpolitical you know that most likely he would be apprehended at the airport because he had a false passport had to undergo that he didn't according to the record look at them thoroughly so i don't think there's an inconsistency here he didn't know that his uncle's financial documents that's what he stated the security forces asked him about and knew that there were other