she said it first it was the father in law's intervening second family and third a lawyer was hired that brought certain papers you're not saying that was all the same person are you know your honor if we look at  y line to when the police arrest me the attorneys have the paper when you when they want to get you bail out but it doesn't say that that in fact happened in this case she's not a lawyer and not one and also your honor i mean none of these thing the being arrested and burned to death in front of them would be sufficient in your mind written record that that would show a tremendous amount of persecution  activities therefore what happens ten years before her persecution is not essential to our application it's merely background evidence of her of the conditions in india and the conditions her family suffered in india and also the her childhood you know and then the immigration shows you where you know what's relevant give us the relevant stuff and at that time he could have said tell us about your brother was burned to death showing persecution the family lawyer was never caught off he was cut off from talking about the september and december well actually from what i've learned i don't have anything in the record to substantiate this but apparently there is no word force for the months because it is the christian calendar or what have you so they have to refer to the ninth month or the twel english or i think at some point she was responding in english when she said december so there is no exact wording to jog me for those months but from what i understand but so that's why we instruct our clients to say the ninth month or the twelfth month and i can't tell on the excuse me counsel live on the one about the lawyer i had in my mind that they thought she said she had to hire a lawyer that's on page one of the six of the record more exception because of her lack of formal education the minimal education she received in fact with the petition of states i believe it was in the immigration judge's decision he she did not make a finding that the because of the formal education she had trouble regarding dates with the immigration judge actually stated was that given the lack of formal education the minimal education she counted for the fact that it would account for inability calculate her age there was some issue with that and she said well perhaps then that's why she was not able to calculate the dates correctly but she did not somehow suggest that a lack of formal education would mean that she could not remember dates and there is that issue which which fluctuated she also had some issues with the the times of her husband's a was somewhat suspect in as much as the language of the letter from the attorney there was some issue about when she was the that and it was an issue that she said that her father sent it to were but then she didn't find the envelope and then she referred to the fact that she died before she left india looking at the contents of the letter for the attorney that she provided it provides it is the language of her brain which but is using an application and it also switches pronouns where it talks as if she was the person who wrote it instead of the attorney when she the board comes up with one out of however many eight or ten one is enough and we'll sustain the board if they find one but we've never said you could group all of them together and make one you know you're not  her claim is that her husband had been part of this group and had been arrested many times i would argue that was significant i would argue that the individual thought she was being released that how that was portrayed i would say that was significant i would argue the letter from the attorney that she provides cooperate evidence and the fact that it seems to be and this first person told me i would argue that significant i would argue the fact that she admitted the death of her brother is significant i would argue the lack of easily attainable cooperative evidence is significant let me let me ask you about the husband's arrest that's a troubling one from a you point to a statement there was a question do you have any problems did your family have any problems with the police or your husband was arrested in january one hundred five and she says before there was no problem and the book and the government challenges are on that because he was having problems but it's a double question she could be either answering either do you have any problems or did your family have any problems if she asked for the former is completely true it's only if you take the assumption that she is answering the la was my first first start providing problem she didn't say was my family's first i'm having a little trouble about one showing that i mean the difficulty was the way a compound question is asked and we all know in cross examination you have to make your questions non compound they want to handle they won't focus on that on appeal and i'm mistaken about that i respond to that i was front and center i think correctly answered in three minutes first i would say that that is but one string one single string by which this court could make this determination that there are several responding specifically to that i think that even though counsel asked the question referred to petition ask the question the logical inference is that that is what she was responding to and then i think in answering this in context i think the also the other issue is does it was it reasonable then for the judge to arguably ambiguous question she answers and the immigration just you know she's she's lying about this but then there's no question about was your husband arrested prior to that date her husband's prior arrest really are central t