akbar mr r demonstrated a well founded if your future persecution and that it is more likely than not that you would be persecuted in the future as well as asked persecute the immigration judge erred as well as the board in affirming the immigration judge and concluding that mr r carves claim for asylum was not credible and that he failed to demonstrate or meet his burden of proof with respect to withholding or with respect to the negative credibility determination  the principal reason provided by the agency was a discrepancy of approximately one month in the time that mr akbar was in high whether occurred in june of two thousand and thirteen or july of two thousand  this inconsistency is so minor and sheds zero light whatsoever on mr r r is a claim of as persecution or fear a future prosecution that is to say that there would be no basis for him to face that there is sufficient reason certainly for the agency to doing or a given that they were going to rely on it given the fact that it in fact is only this today as the color of the cd and it's unclear where the board where the immigration judge it is for the agency themself to provide an explanation for review and where there is uncertainty as to whether the agency was providing or placing great weight on these discrepancies or small amount of evidence without a translation cannot be necessarily admitted or considered in its entirety and to the extent that the agency finds the lack of translation to be relevant it would not constitute a discrepancy in meaning doesn't conclusively established his name doesn't appear on the cover or the date that the people in his region discovered of this cd it simply is something left on no with respect to the negative credibility determination one point i do want to highlight to the court is that it is very clear from reading the immigration judge's decision that she did not apply a negative ability from a nation  claim she presumed to the withholding over who claim which has the same underlying facts and evidence was credible and addressed and deny the withholding a removal claim on the basis of the ability to resettle internally we locate and in a failure to demonstrate that the government of pakistan would be unwilling unable to protect  true to be honest wrong or i could not find anything that specifically addressed to the circumstance and i did look because i have never seen a situation where the judge found a claim not credible for one purpose but presumed credibility for a nd purpose when it was based on the exact same underlying facts and evidence presented so it's a cognitive dissonance to try to say that it's not credible for one the immigration judge noted petitioner provided three varying accounts as to why he believed he would be singled out for persecution and patricia claimed that he was seen witness holding the c d s the other way was that three to four months prior to the incident he claimed a distinction between inconsistency and lack of corroboration so he thinks for example the name on the cover you may say he didn't give a translation that showed the name was on the cover but that isn't necessarily inconsistent with his testimony that is name was there there just isn't something to corroborate that is why you're saying didn't want to write but that doesn't mean that what he said wasn't true so there's substantial litigation over the efforts of the administration to limit the ability to pass through a rd country and i don't take it you're you're making that argument to us that those should be applied we've got lots of examples in our case law of people who pass through a rd country and that doesn't doesn't stand to prevent them you know buying for asylum here especially given somebody who passed through and came here at a time that was the bre all is there anything to support the proposition the fact that he elected not to stay in brazil should be taken away against the frame he's making for asylum here i'm not aware of anything that suggests why and in two thousand and fourteen the sheet of assume your muted thank you thank you ari my apologies i would like to briefly just address some of the things raised by opposing counsel for the government the st with respect to mr r as wife's letter judge in fact did not fall away or for failing to mention the two beatings and this is important that in fact she was not present during the two most important relevant events noted by mr akbar and the immigration judge herself specifically stated that quote this is one piece thirty four of the just the record of her decision the respondent did not yes your honor with respect to the military service and the has noted by the government the agency relied on the interview given or the record of the interview given upon arrival in united states what is is not required to accept his denial with the immigration judge must then evaluate the evidence proffered by the government to see whether or not it can he had sufficient conditions of reliability and notably the what is laid out in that summary in the record of that interview does not report to be a verbatim transcript and does not indicate in fact how that summary was brought about whether it was typed contemporaneously whether it was from the officers recollection handwritten notes there is sufficient reason why the immigration judge should have allies the that specific piece of evidence given that mr r explicitly denies making those statements there was no evidence provided the the officer who prepared the application was not presented by the dirt prepared summary was not presented as a witness there was no opportunity cross examined and at the end of the day there was no analysis by the immigration judge or the board as to its  something that differentiates him from his family and again had this been the only issue addressed by the immigration judge we cannot be certain whether that would be sufficient to deny the application your honor i hope i have answered answer your question unless the court