and in this particular case that's a pretty many traumatic traumatic events and it is not unreasonable for her to show emotions sh changes being made on the document to be viewed in light of her state of mind which was very problematic and it is not uncommon to when asylum seekers broke down using this testimony this is exactly what happened in this evidence in the record clearly does not compel a contrary result there are many reasons for the finding in this case including what was mentioned just a minute ago demeanor let me start with the mean are there is demeanor and there's inconsistency if there's a lack of integrity in the documents let me start with the mean are contrary to counsel's representation there is a specific cogent region reason included in the i g is opinion about demeanor he didn't just say she was acting he said she was acting he said she found that she testified in a very emotional manner in response to simple questions or in response to non traumatic events and we would submit that's akin to when i say finding for example if someone was jumping in their seat or someone was squirming or if someone was uncomfortable or defensive those types of things were cogent reagents her demeanor finding here we have a cogent reason and that is that she testified very emotionally to simple question that's not all that is actually not all we have to go on that's the first point in the idea is opinion that's the first point here there are numerous consistencies i think we've talked about a few of them but i just like to go over quickly what what we what i've seen on the record want she basically  so there's a glaring inconsistency between whether her son was they are not what she testified to she also testified in the application she said nothing about the army burning down  letter also has as you want to point out the discrepancy if you tween the typewritten and the photocopy tax that's a letter reportedly from the party showing when she became a member in addition the letter  for doing it this way well there's nothing in the record that indicates one way or the other why that is and i believe that the i just simply found that inconsistency and that that he found supported his ultimate adverse credibility going on but i will point out there is another  attended both counties and lectures she never specified that she organized committee meetings so there was an additional inconsistency between the latter that she's relying upon in her testimony with regard to the party  not get a medical report and she could never pay in a medical report because doctors would not treat her and yet she submitted a letter from a doctor so that's another inconsistency between those two in rap occasions she did not say anything about the army beating her husband get medical help and that's a doctors were afraid to treat or and that one doctor had surgery burn well used to measure a letter from this doctor i can't remember his name but the letters in the record it's an april ninety four letter and the doctor reports t that he treated her and there's nothing in that letter that says anything about his storage we've been burned so again there's another inconsistency there so in total the case is really when you look at the whole record there is substantial evidence to support the finding that was credibility and there's clearly not compelling evidence by which a reasonable mind would have to be compelled to come out the opposite way and we believe because of those factors that this cour