two common scenario of an immigrant without resources and without a command of the english language who files an asylum application that does not adequately recount his experiences and then later with with representation proceeding second the immigration judge noted that testimony or responsiveness by mr get about two questions about whether he had told his attorney about this particular incident third the immigration judge resources to hire counsel and so he was assisted by a preparer and there's no indication that that preparer was attorney or an accredited representative he was also seventeen years old he turned eighteen on the day he filed his application  guerrillas and reprisal and so on so here's provided us with some detail that detail of course does not relate to him but doesn't say my house was burnt by the guerrillas and so he files the files the statement with some sort of general description of of persecution i really quite specific houses in san joaquin were part and then and not until his hearing after he had an interview with the asylum officer he's filed this application he's been talking to his attorney all of a sudden he comes up with all this detail that nobody has ever heard before about how he was captured and cotton and so forth what are we supposed to do when he provides us with detail in his is that location ole miss all the references that are personal to him and then comes up with a story later on after he's had an interview and and talk credibility determinations and aren't the arguments that you're making now really what the supposed to be resolved by the person who is making those credibility determinations yes  every single point that mr get every every thing that the immigration judge points to as a basis for non credibility but are we also bound counsel by the fact that the i j a heard those explanations and decided not to credit the explanations at the says that cut part of my fingers and you could see her the scars on my fingers and how it is now and that's really important corroborative evidence no one in the hearing gave a narrative description of what those scars looked like but it was something  his father was the chief organizer for he doesn't mr going to really doesn't put forth his political party membership was the real basis for his problems they were his problems came from his presentation  is based on that on the articulable compelling reasons that the the crux of petitioners claim here that he was shot at on two occasions and that he was vend captured by the guerrillas detained tortured allegedly and then knocked unconscious and with a side road that is his claim if that claim was never disclosed at three opportunities that he was given one he never said that in his home written a solemn occasion he never said that to this solemn officer who questioned him thoroughly and whose assessment is on the record and he even admitted he never told that is only trying prior to coming to the hearing and he would have the score believe that  explanation is nobody asked me about it nobody asked me he said specifically well as to the preparer for my film application well he basically just wrote whatever he wanted to write and i just signed it the preparer who then wrote that the girls were trying to capture him trying that they never did what they were trying so that's what he actually contradicts his testimony moving on to what he told  testified that he was a propagandist as well as an assistant whose father and coordinator and quite active for this political party that he was he said he was a member of that he did not know what their platform  well you have not established a well founded fear of persecution while because one as the core pointed out your parents have remained there on harm they relocated successfully nothing's ever happened to them and two after you left there was this this peace accords time between the guerillas and the government and since then there has been no active or weeks according to the state department report no active guerrill immigration judge the information presented by the government did not rebut the presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution if the there was no individualized assessment of how the ninety six peace accords might affect mr get us in individual e m there's nothing no one pointed to any part of the east of the peace accords that indicated there was no active political and no active guerrilla activity in guatemala right now in fact the two thousand and two report is actually to the contrary it indicates