story basically telling the same story that's right yeah but yeah right and that's the problem is that the immigration judge didn't distinguish between adverse credibility finding and finding fraud if you made a finding an explicit finding of fraud he hear you use the two terms interchangeably and i think that what you're saying would be true if the immigration judge had necessarily that he's that he's fabricating something and in that case it seems to me that immigration doesn't necessarily follow that the the applicants in this case her testimony is not credible in that case the immigration judge has an obligation he that she was a supporter of the woman is named and she testified that when they came to her home they told her that her husband should stop his activities so her that's play on that point is in the record is that enough not there right but ultimately i don't think that even if you accept the judge's logic here i don't think there's substantial evidence to conclude that the husband was not credible and i guess the biggest problem with that you know is that it all hinges on what took place badly beaten up when i went out to investigate ballot box stuffing right that's nowhere in there and he says and he says no actually what you do is that it isn't there and that troubled me because this wasn't pointed out in the to ninety three so i guess it again it depends on exactly how the question was being formulated interpreted as it's really following any other ras other harm it's not clear to me are you asking any other harm in challenging the notes were really there's no way for us to go in and argue that there was a mistranslation because there's been you know the interview was two years before the a o doesn't speak armenian our client wasn't in the interview we have no way to do it without  contemporaneous record and this wouldn't happen today because today after that documentary they change the procedures now every single interview was monitored by a translator an official interpreter that didn't happen back then and as a result you had all these people if that were standing alone would that be enough and it's been standing alone and believed i guess that it's hard to say either way the reason being that his testimony is kind of the elephant it's either in the room or out of the room themselves with respect to certain things seems pretty consistent that is for example the real speech or interview you know ok speech or interview who was there who wasn't there i mean there's a minor little things but the story's pretty consistent start to finish on that one the problem is that the immigration judge didn't make an alternative finding relating to whether or not the harm she suffered or that he suffered rose level persecution so all we have in front of us is the credibility determination in terms of whether or not that would be enough i think that in this that they were they took note of this current case in front of us right now and it seems to me that they didn't they didn't find the petition has been incredible they century remained of the immigration judge a kind of flesh out the reasons why there were some issues whereas officer holmes testified in our case he didn't testify in husband's case there's also the immigration judge kind of make lucian's without really explaining why he was doing so my guess and i just potentially get him relief via him would negatively impact his face short i think that if this course as decision saying you know he was found not credible in this case it would probably at least look at if not applied at this correctly to his face when now is that the average credibility finding her to reverse if you want to reverse leverage for the boy granting us to him to actually want to second as well yeah we would but even if we only went on the first point that the i g never actually confronted the credibility of her