that level starting with the beginning in the in the master hearing where the where the judge indicates when there is a to the writers coming in  contradictions between the two applications at this point and what the i five hundred and eighty nine because that may raise an issue with respect to having been given the frivolous warnings i just whenever there's a change in the application that concerns me of and you know it seems to me that we're where there are misunderstandings or issues most of the time either there wasn't a follow up question or the record it seems to me that your client testified that he joined the army he refused to take and that's all in the transcript in the army itself he was given you know of this script seems pretty the worst of the worst jobs he was given no opportunity to be a regular soldier but was relegated to some sort of mechanical zisha and clean the toilets and then once he got out there was a lot of record in relationship to it because of the fact that there was probably at least ten different documents relating to current conditions of the country including the u passed right that's the law that required registration and then not only that required that all the people live within the church the founders at least in the church all had to in your honour's may please the court sherry glazer appearing on behalf of the united states attorney general at your honour's the really are just two issues in this case and the st is the adverse credibility determination of government would argue that the board didn't reach a determination on its if an alternate determination concluding that if it is in fact credible i know the immigration problem that's why i really have a problem because it seems t it was that they were asking him questions about what happened to him and he has certain arab it was true arabic answers whether that's because he didn't understand the question or whether that's where he understood how how he should answer that is you know what was happening to me is the same thing that was happening everybody like me or more likely because nothing was happening to him except your love it was happening to people in general but but the notion that he was not credible case the way it's been i can i can understand why you feel that way it would there would have been very nice of support and i do it occasionally i would argue if this court does not agree with the adverse credibility determination and i would urge this court  not reach that determination but if it does it has to remain on the case so that the board can address the alternate determination because the government's view of the board didn't address the alternate determination asterix the credibility determination and there really is no connection whatsoever between the question asked and what he said for example all of us against them when it was an honest shock so when he was asked how the government prevented him from expressing his political opinion he discussed the army and what he did was he said that he acts he was asked and he expressed his political beliefs and he said to fellow soldiers and that when asked after that how he was mistreated he said that officers beat him and that when it was noted that he said that he expressed his political pinioned to soldiers not officers and then asked again what horror he suffered he went into a discussion about how quote unquote they were patriots and how individuals who were against things happening in their countries were enemies and that did not respond at all to sort of the when he was asked how again and the nd time in this same testimony what harvey suffered in the army he said quote they were irritated by all that they were patriots of their country and those people who and those people who were against something happening in their country were considered enemies and then he asked again then when he was asked again how that deals with his political opinion he said that means that those people have the soviet mentality that all of these questions were trying to get at what heart he specifically suffered and i would argue that it is still non responsive invading and he didn't provide any information about how he was in fact harmed but he that really was the question that was asked and the same is true when he's asked about when he started attending the church in bell it rings so he  perestroika was in the ninety's but that still it doesn't blend with what he originally said because he originally said that his family helped build the church after perestroika but if they started building it in one thousand nine hundred and ninety and according to his testimony now overall really is undermined because it is vague and non response dancers and i would argue if i could just quickly i want to dress in in much detail that while he does cite on the record for mistranslations there's nowhere in his brief where there were instances this judge progress and pointed out where there maybe was trouble at the interpreter had trouble understanding him every time that the tried interpreter had trouble understanding him most misunderstandings are rectified and at the end of those points of the testimony mr major scott said that what the interpreter didn't target in the end was what he said and there's so i would argue that the government would argue that there was no fact no mistranslation whatsoever in the transcript and