the motive and the government actor factor required for the persecution i think i had a hard time understanding the immigration judge opinion in this case because she said she was making everest credibility funny but then she said but i'm not saying that you know she wasn't having trouble with the armenian government and then she said and then she starts going through all the details on the substantive basis and see if she was she belong to that faith and also that she did suffer harm in armenia at the hands of well i guess there's two things there are there's two findings there that the plea i j accepted one is that she says that she's at least pentecostal that's going ok so he said that she's pentecostal doesn't seem to be any reason to to want to just believe her on that on that front he was also willing to accept that she had problems with the authorities but problems with the authorities doesn't mean that it's problems based on the fact that she's pentecostal or that she has an impudent political belief or that she was of a particular ethnicity which other grounds for asylum and his is the bottom line was she hasn't met her burden so how do you how do you how do you overcome how do you how can you show that she has met her burden when there were quite demonstrably a number of discrepancies in her testimony was very big it was very generalized and there are times when she just simply has got her facts wrong there mixed up that's correct  mostly related to the bribes that the family had to p given the fact that her sister was living in the united states and she was sending the money so they could write and keep away the law enforcement and also they get dropped by which is was that the problem is that mostly financial like that they had to pay that price but that wasn't enough that's not no that's not the case that's sufficient sometimes financial provision rises to the level of persecution that's a separate rated the same answer the same way during the cross examination that the main purpose and she was asked that the problems where that they didn't allow somebody to worship freely in their home and secondly he didn't believe the immigration judge actually pointed out that the main problem with the inconsistent testimony and also was that one yes i know but but when he then he said yes but i believe some of it  consistently testified in her on the direct examination and across that police people district representatives would prevent them from gathering stop the meetings and created problems and demanded the money incidents with the armenian authorities or somebody that looks like they're maybe armenian authorities and she doesn't do so consistently she's inconsistent about the number of teeth that she lost his income system up a number of times she was beaten she's very very good her in her answer says very very little detail about about what happened that's correct however that takes us to the competency issue and throughout the testimony the judge and i believe under the matter of a previously reported information because she gets overwhelmed easily due to her anxiety but remembering her previously reported information is not a helpful statement by the psychologist because it suggests that she's what she's struggling to do is to try to remember what she's previously s that's that's not the same as remembering as remembering facts as that is it suggests that she that she may be trying to remember to be consistent about how many times the police came to her house well that's that's just a she may be making the story up that's not that's not a very helpful state about it's not very reassuring by the psychologist but the fact that she finds herself in a panic mode and people do tend to behave differently when do they do  have some of these orders that of course something that needs to be further explore i think and looked into it as you have the time and they say actually she doesn't suffer from memory loss she doesn't suffer from the memory loss but she did it was found that she does suffer from too actually two disorders agro phobia and also the samartha form and it's a group of psychological disorders in which is the pattern experience the patient believable so well but then what do you do with that well i think for the fact finding was required and the case should have been remanded because it's actually what i suppose they agree that in fact she has anxiety disorder and therefore she just remember what she said before and she makes up stories that doesn't make her believable so what happens to the case at that point i think because the judge believe part of her story which he concluded that he didn't believe her to believe belonged to the specific faith and also that she did suffer some problems so the any inconsistency is could be explained with the side with her disorders that she's suffering so basically it is she going to be medicated what is it that you want  what is that that you would like us to tell the guy a to talk stay the proceedings until she's medicated so she can go back and have another opportunity to testify that's correct because part of her that the inconsistency is even there is any indication of incompetency the immigration charge was charged and at the last hearing that when the issue was brought up by the former attorney that she was on a medication she could issue suffer from headaches i think that immigration judge should have stayed  and every time they get nervous well i lied because i was nervous it's not only the nurse if if that was only due to the nervousness i think the psychologist would not have diagnosed her with the disorders and a depressive disorder yes and that's basically there there are psychological reports specifically said that she doesn't suffer from the disorders the psychological disorders that she needs to be medicated over the years she didn't have an opportunity to tylenol was at the time of the hearing when aspirin i believe was the medication that he took at the time of the last hearing and that's something that she claimed to have a headaches and that's when the former attorney actually brought it to the attention of the judge but it wasn't the report late he was late it was submitted with the appeal however i believe because the proceedings were concluded the former attorney submitted that along  have been resolved with a rematch or and further fact finding ok i just have one last question council the state department reports and there's some other independent reports comment on the pentecostal church in armenia none of them seem to identify any systematic discrimination against pentecostals or other religions in armenia i understand that the situation is tough in armenia but there isn't anything in particular about pentecostals did you mean that harm persecution doesn't exist as a matter of fact armenian church is very dominant when it comes to the faith in armenia and a lot of people ninety nine percent of the population  previously submitted by the former attorney that shows that basically eight major media groups they were allowed to comment on the pentecostal faith and they considered this to  be basically evil they had that the brainwash the people the children started i mean what we have those allegations here in the united states by various sects against against other against other religions but it's just it's just unusual we look at a lot of country reports and even when we have a very very small religious minority if there is evidence of discrimination there usually somebody has figured this out yes but for instance the situation with the petitioner son basically he the family had to pay a bribe for him to stay to be stayed in the kitchen and sometimes the immigration judge in his decision he indicated that the son  basically there was an alternative service there is a law that protects people of religious minorities in armenia which is not the case that there is a record presented by the petitioner that people  belonging to minorities they prefer who have have an ability under the law in armenia to undergo alternative service they prefer to go to prison versus going and doing it like participating in the army  service because the military still retains the minister to have control over this people and they are so afraid that they prefer to stay in prison to get a prison sentence versus actually participate like going to  me please the court my name is and i represent the attorney general in this matter the court should deny the petition for review because substantial evidence supports the agency's determination and is my best was not a credible witness the number of problems in a protected class but the inconsistency is here gentrified didn't have to do with whether it was a protected class that had to do with what happened right so we don't know what he ultimately saw happened that's something he thought things happen and lay right through the rest of the opinion where he talks about what might be other explanations for why things are happening seem to be accepting her story so it's he says he's not believing it but it appears that he is believing at least in the in the category of what occurred and what he doesn't believe was is that it was because she was pentecostal so it's there's just i don't know what to do with it doesn't make any sense to me you know that that particular language is somewhat confusing but it helps i think that i j divides his opinion up into two different is actually what you think was an alternative finding that said even if you believe everything she said it's not what he said i believe some of it but he didn't say what he believes is about i don't believe is that it was for this reason that i and this is the problem then the reasons you gave for not believing it was for this reason that also make a lot of sense to me i as to why he didn't believe that it was counter there i have a problem that i do it does make a pretty explicit credibility finding an eighty three in the record he's explicitly says the court finds that respondents testimony was not credible but you're right there is that language in there also saying the court doesn't know what parts of her testimony to believe i think that still adverse credibility language but then he says you know i believe she is a pentecostal i believe she may have been harmed that they may have questions why they were extorting money and why and whether really her son had this military problem for him because of his religion and suppose for some other r turn he doesn't use that language but he doesn't discredit any portion of that testimony in that second half and that that paragraph is the preface to that alternative next it's holding you know he believes in you know for this purpose for nexus he believes you know she was hurt and her her family was targeted by the year that she's talking about why did the utica target you so it does it is an alternative holding but i do agree that i mean it's confusing let me ask you another question so every now and again a fact finder gets some witness before them and they're just not making any sense they're just not a fact finder looks and says i can't believe i don't know what to believe asked that the new evidence be considered by the board as part of adjudicating the appeal so she doesn't make any case for reopening and sending the case back to the i j a for a fact finding telling the board to do that and so the board's hands were tied and without knowing why this was new material previously unavailable not able to be scott discovered evidence why should they grant reopening and as was pointed out during the earlier testimony that that evaluation has some has some language that certainly  for instance you know the i j found it problematic that her declaration written declaration didn't contain any mention of the significant injuries that she incurred during the two attacks by the archippus and it's how does anxiety explain away  that important discrepancy in addition as noted her testimony was very big and about things that you would think she'd have details about detention by the k g b officers with apparently a nine to ten day ordeal but she couldn't provide any more clear testimony than the fact that she was threatened she was called a traitor and she was asked about how she got into amsterdam who helped or but in terms of what she said  her testimony boils down to the statement they would beat me and threaten me and strike me and that's about as detailed as her testimony gets she was asked a number of times in cross examination how exactly she had been threatened but also she was they had a harsh manner the manner in and of itself was threatening and they would call me a traitor they would emphasize i was a traitor but then on redirect she says something new she says that the k g b agents had also threatened to kill her and this is completely in contradiction to her written declaration where she says not that the k g b agents made a death threat but that they told her they were going to detain her indefinitely so the idea reasonably found that these inconsistency is and the lack of testimony the back of specificity in her testimony made her not credible and as i and they argued earlier i believe that is the nexus finding as an alternative holding by the court by the by that i j and should be  asylum claim and he says yeah i i'm willing to accept she's but she's pentecostal but there's nothing here that relates to the grounds and besides that i i don't i don't believe her anyway i think that's found not that she had been harmed by the because of her religion but because she was perceived to have money that he knew she had money because they knew she had relatives in the united states and because she had successfully bribed her son's military commanders when he was in the military from two thousand to two thousand and two a number of factors support the immigration judges nexus determination and herself testified that from her conversion in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven up until two thousand and two when her son was discharged she was never physically harmed she states quote they did not harm us but they would always come and harass us the only serious physical harm she endured was two thousand two onwards until she left armenia and the fact that the were that she was not physically harmed until two thousand and two suggest that the europe were only motivated by money the two thousand and two seems to be a clear dividing line what comes before is low level harassment and after two thousand and two is physical violence when the want money and they don't get it while the two thousand to preach a thousand to harassment might have involved her religion the in that they were dispersing religious meetings trying to at least she doesn't make it sound like their efforts were successful the post two thousand to our efforts are definitely different in nature from what came before and the idea was reasonable in concluding that the difference in severity of the harm discharge and the harm that befell her and her friends and family starting in two thousand two says in her declaration regarding her son quote when he was released from the army after two years of service we became targets of york a path for extortion of money five so for a decade at least there have been no violent incidents reported and i'm sorry i'm sorry it took over my time in conclusion the court should deny the petitioner for review and affirm both the adverse credibility and access to termination occasionally can't she just of the well just based on that section they i think if the psychological report is considered an official document that they certainly can and besides that i think if they were reviewing the decision de novo they should have noticed that's what the along with the psychological report that there wasn't and they the bay was reviewing the entire record the transcript they could have seen that there was briefly as far as the injuries i think the judge gave very like too much weight to that injuries the fact that they were not listed in a declaration went like where central to the mission when he was good case where the court found that mistreated when the applicant decoration that she was mistreated and threatened and subsequently provides details about the instances of harm that she suffered