narrowly escaping being arrested by family planning authorities she fled the country this is the heart of misuse claims however in denying her application and finding that she was not credible the board focused on  for first of all the board didn't rely on that as an inconsistency it noted it in response to an argument that the students attorney made to the born they they noted the attorney argued that the immigration record but it doesn't overcome their deficiencies then and they noted that at her credible fear interview she is alleged to have made the statement however if you review the record when she was questioned about this by her  officer didn't testify in her hearing on her response was that they may have gotten it wrong but also part of her response was indiscernible and that is entirely a result explanation because at that credible fear interviews she inconsistency or a translation error in that it also wasn't relied on but as far as the translation issue that i was discussing we know noting over one hundred instances where the interpreters responses were in discernible and you know that coupled with the other aspects of his testimony or his translations that we noted where on the record the party the judge and the interpreter himself recognized that there i as we children versus daughter in law as versus mother in law family versus mother and you know clearly the inconsistency if they even exist are possibly translation errors and another thing that is significant about this case is that the borg rely almost entirely on testimony that misuse has been provided in a different proceeding before a different judge several years earlier and he was found credible and so mistreated was never confronted by the immigration judge or the government attorney about any alleging consistencies in the testimony and recently has court issued a inconsistent or unclear testimony again that undermines the reliability of the evidence that it can rely on and it's cited to see versus ashcroft for that proposition and we believe that in this case the court finds that there's any credence to any of the inconsistency he's missed she was never confronted with any of those after h because again some of his testimony was contradicted the just new testimony you actually didn't i mean they both consistently testified about how the authorities found out that his wife is pregnant they both consistently testified about where they were mycelium when she was four to five months pregnant they both consistently testified about where they went to live after her daughter was born and they are consistent in testifying about w they want question about where their children lived that part of the testimony is the only part of things slightly unclear but again because it's possibly the result of translation errors because they were never question about it neither of them  confronted with it and he was specifically available to testify but there was an off the record conversation in which the immigration judge told the party she was going to deny the case but didn't come right that for the record he never testified and so for that  that's about right thank you thank you who from the government immigration just and doing so made some modifications to that according to the law of the circuit the court should review not only the oral decision of the immigration judge but also the four page decision of the board of immigration appeals  allegedly being persecuted on two occasions mrs t said that her children were with her parents and by my village then she modified her story and said no my son is with me my daughter is with my my parents harder yes you are because her especially her claims she's being persecuted because she has two children if she does not or a husband isn't aware of these two children allegedly are it goes to the question of whether or not she was and i think if she had her two children with her at the time they carry them with her and they were with there with you all the time she would make herself a more likely candidate if that were in fact the practice but again the you  argument that this she was just talking while she wasn't there's at least five instances in the record what the judge has to tell to keep quiet additionally the areas where the support found her not credible there are no she hasn't said what was what didn't come out what should have come out so the court is left to wonder what if anything went wrong in addition she never made this argument below in her and her brief to the board in a during the immigration hearing so there was no notice to the board that she actually felt that the interpreter wasn't competent if she didn't feel that the interpreter was competent you should have raised this issue a clause in a in a brief that doesn't really get to the point and leaves it up up in here isn't really fair to the board and in that case but there were four reasons why the why the board did find her not credible the second issue you is the fact that she did admit to a immigration officer that she had a sterilization certificate at her hearing she said that the immigration officer probably got it wrong however if the court would look at that at that interview she was represented by counsel she understood the interpreter she read it and understood us made a very reasonable argument that the the boarding judge didn't didn't do enough investigation mr lynn said that they were spotted this is key he said that the authorities went and reviewed the records and that's but in any event she has offered a reasonable interpretation to the facts however this court this court must find that the board and the immigration judges facts are fine unless they're compelled to conclude to the contrary i e no other result again or again is reasonable but it doesn't overcome that for the fourth reason that the board relied on was that they said that she submitted an altered document they never said it was fraudulent but then again this is a document allegedly of her daughter's birth certificate it doesn't have her location and where she was born there's over written characters and in addition the ages of the parents are incorrect again the board never said that's fraudulent but here we have a woman who centuries persecuted because of two kids and there's something wrong with the birth certificate again it's one more reason why she's not credible the immigration judge gave other reasons why mrs t was not credible the boy did not address that she didn't have two children so what difference does the person of faith it's just if if that document is on reliable there's something about it that it's not right and it goes to her second child it keep on it incredible that after ten years of living in through the moment that her mother in law dies the immigration officials have set up sort of a sting to come get her and then she springs out and is able to escape it's just incredible based on the fact that she live relatively openly with these authorities potentially pursuing her for ten years and there's another question as to whether or not she allegedly received notice of sterilisations these are just others other examples that the immigration judge credibility and i