y your honour's the cost to the petitioner of an erroneous credibility determination is too great for us to get it wrong and for us to rely on this decision that the petitioner like credibility because of the fact because of the no because he was inconsistent with respect to the number of times that he was arrested the decision doesn't seem to question whether or not he was arrested just a number of times that he was arrested petitioner's uncle that he was there on two occasions after he was arrested and he was there to get him and also to take a significant treatment so it would have been reasonable for the idea in fact as you did in fact state that that there was evidence of past persecution but he said that he didn't really know what the basis of the arrests were the board's decision then goes on to state that the inconsistency was with respect to the original five eighty nine which was a nine hundred ninety two that application was repaired one found the petitioner to be credible and consistent what's interesting enough for the real issue for us we don't get to decide it's credibility really all we get to decide is whether there's substantial evidence on the record as a whole so that i g's decision on its credibility isn't well i think portable i think there's some question your honor as to whether the the board relied on solely its own determination or whether it did it in over a view and simply adopted affirm the i j a decision in fact if you look at the decision it starts out by stating that the number of times he was arrested was inconsistent but by the end of the decision it says because the record contains and because it's an evidence that undermines his credibility we have from the ideas decision i would submit to you that because the record in contains inconsistent evidence refers to the inconsistent evidence that the board referred to itself i was never arrested the application just doesn't state anything about any arrest he then goes into the interview at the asylum office and the asylum interview herself admitted that she didn't she did not remember stating if she had asked him how many whole call because it's because it's the i j a responsibility to do an individual his analysis based on the testimony that he has in front of him and he cannot rely simply on a statement by the i mean this court is in the past that this is we can't petitioner left off the detention and arrest the i g found this to be a glaring inconsistency in this court strained him out and said that the mere fact that testimony is added doesn't make that testimony incredible i mean the heart of the petitioners claim was that he was a member of the staff and that he feared persecution if he returns that's what he put on his regional application he didn't say anything about arrests although he did say that he was harassed and that he was considered a troubleshooter in his area and that the police knew about him how the testimony of his uncle who was there to get him out of jail a couple of times or to take him to seek medical treatment so that they cannot be an inconsistency because simply because he added more detail or information to the original the original  perfectly credible consistent application and his oral testimony with the exception of the fact that he left off the arrest she stated that she didn't think that that was that was the sufficient clarity and consistency that made him incredible what she said was that she believed that she said pale as a liberation force and she assumed that that's where i needed to go she said as an asylum officer i believe that's where i needed to go so she pretty much shut down everything and just started focusing on those questions and asked everything  uncle so i mean the problem is one way of looking at it is if you got that he'd been arrested another way of looking at it is  he remembered the story he was supposed to tell to make it better and as it is eerie and was just telling whatever story was good we really can't know which is the is on something that is really important and striking at most people remember getting arrested especially in a place where they roll rollers over where it's stuffed in jail the other thing is being consistent get hamburgers and french fries no matter how honest they looked i would know it was why the asylum interviewer said that fifty percent more than fifty percent of our docking consisted of in the town claims that was primarily was she was involved in hating she found it to petitioners that the petitioners testimony was consistent with country conditions as well she presumably would be also an expert in that area she found it to be credible she found his testimony to be consistent with the conditions most of my points the fact is that the i j a went through an extremely prepare for these things but i have a question for you to kind of funny that the immigration officer would remember something from an interview what was it ten years ago that she didn't happen to know possible car accident did not bode well for his credibility on the other hand you had the officer before you to assess his credibility and then the policeman right there on the witness stand i knew it was  right and that's the determination that you were to make in this case the i j a was no he was lying because of his demeanor his demeanor was just wonderful it's just that in routine matters remember skid marks from years ago when he had hundreds of accidents like not likely that that certainly is possible but in this case the i j a who was sitting in the position that you were sitting and watching the policeman watched the asylum officer heard what she said looked at her notes and believed her to be credible but it's not in the notes right part about the  there were things that she testified to that were not in her notes the issue before this court now however is whether or not the fact that he'll mid the information from his various asylum applications about his prior arrests serve to justify and explain the i j a is perfectly reasonable conclusion that he wasn't credible the fact is that as counsel is stated within a month of entering this country saying essentially he's afraid for his life he's going to be killed if he goes back to india he neglects to mention anything about ever being arrested i would point your honour's to the exhibits in the record that i know you've read but exhibit a is the first asylum application which neglects any mention of a prior arrest simply that he' fearful of going back to his country because he believes that he will be arrested certainly it couldn't be any more strong evidence that his belief was warranted if he had already been arrested there's just no way to conceive that he could have forgotten that he says that these were mistakes made by an attorney these were mistakes made by typos there are mistakes made by everyone but him he makes a similar error apparently as reflected in the exhibit i which is that application for adjustment status when he gets married although the marriage is later ended he answers the question specifically that he has never been arrested so it does seem that the petitioner in this matter answers questions according to how he think it will go well for him he doesn't realize when he fills out the first application that by acknowledging members ship in the k l left that will serve to deny him his asylum and he is not eligible for asylum if he's a member of a terrorist organization when he realizes that he changes the story to say oh no i wasn't a member of the k l f a distant relative was when he testifies he says i'm not even sure who if that distant relative was although it's payton like clear from his earlier applications he knows exactly that exactly what he was doing in short all of the evidence that was presented to the i j a he went through as i have noted in my brief approach and approximately fifty pages of written transcript parsing through all of these important matters that went right to the heart of the petitioners claim and pain justifiably to the conclusion that petitioner is not to be believed are the strongest points on your side inside the united states or outside so he denies that he said he was arrested then he denies it again those would be the strongest points for the credibility determining families that he wasn't arrested second time he said he wasn't arrested third time he was