immigration judge before even finishing hearing the lead respondents responded spank them petitions at this point testimony he offered pre hearing voluntary departure that even based on the records that we have whether the adverse credibility finding is properly supported yes you're right as to credibility finding it is our position that the i a e a did limit their review of the credibility the very first one that said they were asked did not even relate to the claim that the petitioners presented actually related to a relative's claim and relative situation is a cousin who had to how these events transpired so there is no inconsistency for that particular incident and the second incident that the i a e a mentioned is the wife's medical treatment from been provided at the hearing so there's really no inconsistency is our position because there's also threats by prosecutor is also seems to be nonexistent in the in the his attorney so it's not inconsistent with the actual declaration just clarifying and providing for the details and as far as the working consistency pointed out i came out of the van and took him into the back so it's very logical to only paid attention to when they started moving at them in a threatening manner which is the only time they would notice them a every opportunity to support those allegations with credible direct testimony and they failed to do so that's clearly wrong they were not afforded every opportunity the children were not allowed to a they were not on the witness list and that's why the i did tonight and in part i do is also concerned about the level of credibility that was already presented to him in the testimony and was concerned about putting children on the stand should we have billets parents credibility in these are these are not teenagers the children are eight and six at the time of the alleged incident and their testimony is even with each other but with the asylum application you know it all works together if you just give them a break and understand people don't spell out everything at once details come out as per examiner well s unambiguous terms i was really only once for i was raped once there's a declaration in here from the husband who just as the wife was raped are you relying on something else if i'm not mistaken that's the only declaration in the record and they both testified that they prepared the declaration together well what i'm asking you where in this declaration do you find something that says i was raped the wife was raped only not think that bite me how can you possibly come in here and argue about the record if you have not read the record i've read the transcripts and i've read the briefs and i've read the administrative decisions so you've read the entire transcript yes i have and what how do you get that that was with the file that the materials that were given for me but you didn't read the underlying declaration provided by the by mr morgan because you didn't have that but a fair amount read and the transcript actually does a good job of explaining what the declaration says and that's what i'm going to see that's the problem sometimes it does not well you can't even say that because you don't know the record thank you the testimony at least some that were provided in the psychological evaluation are very consistent between all three