specifically the board found only agreed with the immigration judge that the absence of any any information from the physician or sister in law undermined her credibility in this counsel let me ask a couple questions for that path here's a bother me about this case and i want to give you a chance to respond to it yes first of all if she thinks things are that bad for fiji and i know they have been that bad for a lot of east indians who have been featured from time to time in the past if she thinks that were things were that bad i can't see why she'd send her daughters back either and  the fact that she did seems like it is substantial evidence on the record is a little to sustain a credibility determination and the second thing that i'm concerned about and it would dress is the corroboration to me saying i sent the kids back with my sister in law because my daughters were sick and then not putting a sister in law even though she lives in the united states not even getting affidavit from or it's kind of like in a car accident saying i petitioner had to rely on the people around her she had family united states she had an attorney in the united states she trusted their judgement that she would not be able to get adequate care for her children so she made the choice to send them back to fiji and had to wait the danger between them remaining in the united states between and the danger of returning them to fiji she made the choice and to say now that her claim a past persecution which is not really been disputed on the record th testimony she gave regarding the rape she suffered the beatings that her husband suffered his abduction his incarceration to say now that her claim is now undermined by the fact that she made the decision to send them back to fiji  and now this issue about whether or not she still fears and where is she still has an object a fear of future persecution in fiji is not what the immigration judge decided in this case he simply doubted her the veracity of her testimony going past persecution simply on various i was concerned with the same thing that judge kleinfeld was concerned about i mean if you get a mother who's escaped the warsaw ghetto for example with her children and her children are still in the united states a mother who would send the children back to the warsaw ghetto to be with their father who is who is the target of the occupiers attention in the first place i mean it it strikes one as so illogical and profoundly misguided that that her testimony her explanation about why she did this he claims and the in his decision that she didn't she made this decision to send her children back based on without reservation i think is the word he used without reservation center children back in that is not people and they advised her you don't have the money we can't help you with with the money to afford a hospital care for your children you should send them back to where they can at least be with their father and at this point i happened that they were so sick they're able unable to walk and dang in the next breath say but i sent them back to fiji with my sister in law not only zach a dramatic inconsistent statement to let's let's peel back the onion layer of time and it seems to me her for the first part of the analysis is whether or not she's suffered past persecution there really isn't much in doubt that if you believe her she has you agree with that i think you have to do i think you're right to be able to get to the far past persecution and i agree with the judges that mention that you know if we get past the credibility issue there's a there's a there's certainly a strong case for past persecution but you must get over that hurdle first and if illogical inconceivable that she would send these children back to fiji with her sister in law who is a legal parent a lawful permanent resident united states a two brothers are here not lawful permanent resident of the united states it just seems that the option that would be relevant as to the issue of whether or not a letter of future persecution in other words that may well be relevant to read but her past persecution the presumption of that and that is created by that but i don't understand why we should disbelief her story about the rape because she trows the later to send her kids back the logical explanation maybe country conditions have changed i don't know that but that would be expect the governments are going but i just don't understand how why we should concerning and it's also it twice with when the children were turned is when her husband was supposedly released from the fijian army or she testified in two thousand and three but obviously that would be inconsistent because she sent her kid back and this is what transpired during the testimony when she was challenged on it in two thousand to relate with her father so obviously she could not he could not have been released in two thousand and two he was already released in two thousand but she corrected herself on her record and she  yeah there's there was just a very recent study concerning the grants of asylum cases nationwide and they nationwide i think they're somewhere around forty percent to somewhere in that area but they've broken down even further to immigration judges because of the study that the attorney general proposed in january of this year concerning and they broke it even further so i think when you look at those all together i believe and i can't be confident but i believe it's somewhere around forty percent range or maybe even higher than that and that's the number that comes to mind now but i can certainly get the accurate if well i said to me it's a relevant question there seems to be a lot of distrust of the immigration system among judges generally and as one who doesn't have a background in the area i was trying to figure out if there was something about the results or the system generally the more you know that justified that answer and i you know i think obviously this court only sees the ones that are not granted i mean the ones that are granted ishtar's but there it is the same study showed why variance and rates among immigration judges within the same district that's true and even why ranges between the countries obviously that i don't assign have come from but the other instance i want to talk about was the lack of core operating evidence because that involves a recent change from the real i d act on how court looks at now the lack of cooperation and it's and it's under the substantial evidence turns and it must be compelled that that cooperate in evidence was not reasonably available to time and in this particular case while the board ignore the other reasons why the past persecution and i submit that that that her sister in law's knowledge of her past persecution was or was not it was not direct personal knowledge it was only hearsay about what she had been told by either petitioner or other family members in fact she was in the united states of america at the time that was being persecuted and moving on i don't see that it seems like the sister in law  about what kind of physical condition the kids were in and what your sister in law told you about why she was they asking her to take the kids back there i would argue in part you are also i mean are you even if you didn't if those questions the government would have you on your own even if you did not ask the questions the government lawyer certainly would have about what you know just what i said what kind of condition were the kids in when you took them back and what did your sister in law say to you about why she wanted you to take them back yes your honor but but once again i know we're circling this issue but are clearly factors that the immigration judge is using that happened after the testimony she described about what happens here in fiji if the judge wants to know why did you send why should i believe i'll tell you why your honor because there's no question about this woman's identity there's no question that the that the country condition reports place for a claim in context there's also no question that her testimony about the core of her claim is unequivocal and consistent the other parts of her claim that have been questioned are things that she doesn't have any direct knowledge about it's about what happened in india in fiji after her husband was released what are the things or like for them in fiji and