a significantly broader range of conduct than the immigration judges finding and in particular the immigration judge did not find any past persecution based on my client's treatment of guerrilla soldiers and he acknowledged that any testimony translator and in typically people bring a friend or someone else tonight we have no doubt that this person was bilingual the question is when you have such a narrow range of language they could be subject to a subtle differen interpretation does this translators not a professional translate that absolutely accurately if the statements were less than vague us would be hard to argue that this was sort of a possible subtle we used to do that and we're maintaining that it's not even clear that either the judge in his decision put a lot of emphasis on the fact that he used a third person plural it's not exact that's another area where it could have been  to deny emmeline it would seem that if he had asked a few more questions it would have clarified whether really man did you do this the i v b i a put a lot of emphasis on the fact that he said  but if the ambiguity took place in the immigration hearing itself where the judge was interpreting and there was a chance for cross examination and clarification and then the record is still in big us i think you are way in favor they persecution there's a long line of authority that we've quoted cited in our in our brief that basically says however deplorable active for instance they have one where is that i think the military is beating and abus really collaborator in custody and they said that was an on account of political pinioned however deplorable how reprehensible while we're maintaining my client did did not say these things and did not persecute others the second issue is whether legally those are acts of persecution anyway and since the b i a did not adopt the i j decision but expanded upon it i maintain that we're entitled to raise that issue on in its appeal also persecutor and therefore ineligible for asylum the petitioners admissions here leave no doubt that he ordered incited assisted or otherwise participated in persecution and this court reviews this case fucking interviews with asylum applicants who by the way did testify that she did understand spanish a little a little bit she didn't say she was fluent and the immigration judge had to determine well who do i believe here an understandable if the immigration judge said i didn't believe him because i had a credible testimony officer well i just find it i'm struggling to fit this that within our case law ok but i think what the immigration judge did do  officer and i think that's enough under under a nice sort of case law to suggest that that is if you want to put this in the adverse credibility realm that would be enough to say that that's an adverse credibility for finding i know i keep switching on that but i know for the first second why don't you why do you think that it's not an adverse credibility case i know it's not the typical case as you described it but we found other cases where there are documents  and testimony and if in absence specific findings where you have to do some weighing of contradictory evidence and we say well you know you've got to take that extra step and make the adverse credibility so what's  your view i would say the difference is that in the sceptical of his credibility case you've already left the hurdle of getting past any statutory bars to asylum and you're on your way towards proving whether you have a credible claim of the silent now here he didn't even get know not to interrupt but but we don't you have the same considerations on eligibility when you when they when the question is the time of entry so i don't think we can draw the line on  opinion i would look at the ministry of record that started at page fifty four where the immigration judge states that the service being the immigration and naturalization service brought forward the testimony saddam officer and then he goes through this helen walk who is the name of the asylum officer and he talks about how she reviewed her notes and had a very clear recollection of the interview and he went on to say that her she that she didn't feel that there were any interpretation problems with regard to translation and he continues with the immigration judge continues talking about miss walker's testimony from page fifty four contemporaneous with interview of ninety seven and india as she testified simultaneously interview the court steps these notes as providing information that indeed contradicts what is the respondents testimony at the hearing of february eighth two thousand and one and then comes back and in some on page fifty nine the court the immigration judge found on the same issue said that the persecution was on account of a protected activity therefore in order to preserve that argument that it was not on account of protected activity the petitioner was obligated to exhaust that  incredible he heard the translator to say these things and yet those are not mutually exclusive findings as in any criminal trials where he said she said number two the immigration judge is  making a ruling at the end of the case based on his overall impression of oral testimony without a written transcript b i m focuses on the specific parts of the transcript which support its findings of pa persecution and it boils down in our estimation and if you review their decision it needs for answer to one question what happened to the villagers to the guerrillas we would punish them by beating them and cutting them  that answer being interpreted correctly and we maintain that that's not enough to find my kline analogy for this kind of relief concerning the waiver issue we've made one of our legal arguments is that this does not