came to a head in late two thousand and one when she was detained beaten and interrogated for a period of four months by the iranian authorities on account of her christian faith and proselytizing to muslims immigration judges finding of non credibility  was not supported by substantial evidence as required by this court and we the ins in addition mr cobain's request for relief under asylum the convention against torture and withholding of removal were compelling supported by ample country condition report evidence even though her application testimony both included references to a consistent pattern of alter cations with the authorities second a series of immaterial inconsistency is in date third the immigration judge found statements concerning fear for her life after she was released from detention quote implausible despite ample country condition report evidence and forth the i g based his finding on what he perceived to be the then sixty three year old mystical peons quote destructive i think the principal factual issues that you should address is whether or not the immigration judge had substantial evidence to find that she was inconsistent and consistency is the basis of a lack of credibility inconsistent when she says she was briefly detained by iranian police i guess they are called past dollars in february two thousand and one and her oral testimony that she was caught by the pastor was put in a car and driven to jail thirty minutes away interrogated and kept in jail for a day or night t seem to be somewhat inconsistent except for the date there was one was a brief detention and release and the other is an arrest drive to jail overnight stay two stories don't match what's bypass guards and quickly escaped the she never really said that no your honor what i'm saying is that the immigration judge was incorrect in characterizing it as something that had never been mentioned in any context before so in this case what she the four month attention and interrogation so what i'm contending is not that the immigration judge was incorrect in saying that she made the statement but what i'm saying is what he was incorrect about was that it hadn't been filled out for her by her cousin who spoke english and she did not speak english at that time so your honor we are also contending that the immigration judge did not review her application with the requisite charity that this court required under stated she entered the country and so you are right april twenty ninth of two thousand and two she filed her application in july july twelfth of two thousand and two and your honor she stated that in her she stated that again i'm sorry the government stated that again when it issued her a notice to appear after the denial of her ministry to filing and moreover the immigration judge when he denied her request for voluntary departure stated that mr coping was quote served a copy of the notice to appear within one year of her entry to the united states so it seems your honor that the all of the evidence clearly points to the fact that she was indeed there wasn't a timely filing were not supported by substantial evidence and therefore cannot form the basis of a proper finding of non credibility we asked since substantial evidence does not support a negative credibility finding that this court reversed the i g his decision and  there's one issue that's properly before the court and that is whether the record compels reversal of the agency determination that petitioner time credibly established her withholding of removal and cat claim now as judge noted the inconsistency between petitioners declaration which was filed in time closer to the events that happened to her in iran and her testimony w declaration it wasn't it wasn't described as february but it was generally two thousand and one she had been stopped on the street for passing out their local verses translated  one it was only once her attorney realized after the explanation of the entire august two thousand and one experience that her attorney realized that her declaration and her testimony was inconsistent in an effort to clarify that for the immigration judge at that point her attorney pointed out that there was an inconsistency and petitioner suddenly announced that there were two incidents in february two thousand and one that's highly suspect and and in so far as she was unable to respond to any of the questions and the immigration judge continually had to interrupt her to explain the procedures of the courtroom she stops the department of homeland security is cross examination on that number on that insist on the august two thousand and one incident so the fact that she wasn't able to show inconsistency between testimony of august two thousand and one and her declaration of two thousand and one in her and her  regular testimony versus cross examination really marsh shows that the immigration judge cut short the cross examination of that issue that being said the invasiveness and confusion and frustration that came out was not just a sixty three year old woman's confusion that occurs in a courtroom in a foreign land and that sort of thing in my tenure at the department of justice and the office of immigration litigation i have never seen an immigration judge continually stopped proceedings because a petitioner has or an alien has consistently answered the question before it has been translated both her attorney and the immigration judge stopped her and asked her to to please let not only the question stop being so complete the question from you know the immigration judge or her own attorney but for it to be translated the immigration judge was increasingly confused as behavior happens obviously in the setting the immigration judge is the best individual in front of the facts and in front of the individual to find out what's going on and has the context to understand what's going on he was there in the courtroom with her that is a luxury that you and i respectfully do not have and it was his determination judging by watching her that it was a basis and the record substantially  i understand your point and when looking at the the record to independent conclusions in this court at the ninth circuit does that mean that the immigration judge that this court needs to find that immigration judge was run to inconsistent maybe a review of other of the inconsistency is might help with that not only was the february two thousand and one incident different she also had a witness come and speak and the immigration judge didn't conclude this but it's  it's fairly recognizable in the record that the witness was fabricating an answer that she wished the immigration judge to know when asked mr i'm and remember her at the church in glendale california when asked as to any knowledge as to what had happened to mr kopi and mr kamali testified that she had in fact heard that petitioner had been  happening at one point she was arrested and detained for one day and one night the other time she was able to escape and again we have inconsistent testimony from both witnesses the petitioner herself who  we would again argue that it was not raised and therefore waived in the asylum in that initial application and again petitioner had two bites at the apple in this instance but wait a minute let's go back to your notice to appear right right the second item you notice to here is an allegation by the government that mr co i would assume that my time is up i would like to respond to you if that's ok i would argue the government would argue that there is no jurisdiction with regard to that specific issue because there is i understand what you're saying that there's an allegation of fact by my my side and that for therefore that should take the issue off the table we would argue that that's not a finding of fact in that it was not an immigration judge not a finding of because you didn't tender the fact if you don't it's also not a finding of fact that you represent the united states of america specifically according to this court's decision in the last and the immigration judge pointed out only one specific instance he pointed to the record at page one sixty three which i will recount in full here for you but it's an instance iran and earlier ok so she first saw her in two thousand and one in the united states but i had known her in iran and i had nothing for the us you have rushed thank you very much as acting presiding judge will declare this matter  submitted and we thank both attorneys for very good arguments thank you