be minor but the problem is that he first said that he was arrested three times in february of one thousand nine hundred two and then he said three times in the year ninety nine is reasonable for a person on the stand with his life on the line describing the events that occurred to have some confusion about events that perhaps did not leave as severe an impact at they had sure that you can't remember necessarily the date but you could at least get a ballpark or else not make up three different stories that's the whole problem you could say look i don't have i don't have any idea the the boy did not specifically rely upon the drive the driver's license and making his address credibility fine in fact it did conduct a very thorough in the pain review of the immigration judge's findings in the start that this driver's license was not statement is that not everything that the immigration judge so forth as supporting the adverse credibility finding necessarily at support the finding in the board's view i think the immigration judge threw out basically all of mr singh supporting documents when it determined that his driver's license was fraudulent basically said ok his driver's license is fraudulent therefore none of these documents are any good i believe the immigration judge also points to the fact that mr stern did not know about operation bluestar the boy did not rely upon that lack of knowledge and mr saying what the boy did was did take an independent review of the immigration judge finding and sort of distilled what the immigration judge found in picked out that's the most significant discrepancies within mr singh's testimony and between his documentary evidence and testimony in the term and that was sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding and the government believes that is more than sufficient to prevent to allow reasonal fact find its sermon that mr singh was not credible tickler in court we think the most important descriptor omission is mr singh's failure to mention on direct testimony regarding his nine hundred ninety six arrest that he was subducted to stand all day in the hot sun and how the hot roller had a roller rolled over his legs mr singh had at every opportunity and direct test testimony used on transcript page sixteen seventeen when his attorney asked him you know what kind of abuse did you suffer in the one thousand nine hundred six arrest he didn't mention that having to stand out in the hot sun and having a roller rolled over his like it was only on cross examination that when the government attorney asked the problem for mr saying is that as a court of review you're in the position of determining whether this particular evidence compels reversal of the i j a and board's finding that that this piece of evidence does not support an average cr finding we think that this piece of evidence it's goes to a seminal event in his one thousand nine hundred sixty arrest it wasn't the mere missing detail i think if you look at the rest of his testimony regarding his nine hundred ninety six arrest he testified that he didn't he didn't mention the medical treatment in his declaration and that is an example of where there's another discrepancy between his his declaration and his testimony in which there is no mission there is no mission and declaration and this time and then he embellish it on direct testimony opening arguments i think i great example of the significance of this date discrepancy is an argument that the government pressed at the merits hearing and regarding his two thousand and one arrest mr singh testified that he talking to you about it forming this kind of thing how would you possibly be held to remember when date one day is contrast with the next day and i'm were first of february twelfth that's not a significant omission i mean counting days if you don't if you're if you're if you're elected you were detained for eleven days you may not know if you were detained for ten or eleven you might not remember but the fact that you can't remember what it whether you this specific much he was arrested finally another point to judge drama brought up in his declaration in cross examination cross examination since stated that his father in law came to pick him up came to pick up his wife and kids from the village after his release from the two thousand want to rest well on direct testimony he stated that they went to his in last place these discrepancies that i've just mentioned collectively really all relate to the cen sings claim for asylum that is allegedly unlawful arrest and abused by the police and they were not trivial and therefore they justify the boy's conclusion that he was incredible and in any event even assuming that these events were minor there cumulative effect indicate that that individual was coached by his or her attorney they really like they really got perfect so you don't know where the truth lies yet the immigration judge and the board have seen countless number of these cases and they're in the best position