a inconsistency does not need to reach the heart of the claim ok well i knowledge ing that there still have to be specific and cogent reasons for a negative credibility finding and the portion in the court is to consider the t considering the circumstances under which the statement statements were made and no time to the immigration judge properly consider the circumstances under which any real or perceived inconsistency is rigged there were five issues she started living with her abuser either three years or five years before the abused began had nothing do with the abuse case and then the other four are really just apparent inconsistency which are easily explained so your honor there is the eight circuit tian versus bar that's two thousand and nineteen case points out that every minute specially when there's an interpreter there even even something as simple as interpretation has to be given some consideration by the trier of fact while here we had interpretation nothing about that was ever mentioned but still more there were several things that the immigration judge failed to discuss the only the only passing comment the i j a made about circumstances was that she had a miscarriage she understands that miscarriage can be traumatic but she had three miscarriages they were the result of physical and sexual abuse over an extended period of time she had a th grade education she was under translation she spewing facts a trial that didn't exist so she was pro se initially at the border she was found of credible fear the st issue the only real inconsistency was when she met up with this mikey castro mr castro who ended up being her abuser she tied it to two thousand and six at the border but in testament so in her st at the words she said she was pro se through a translator then international statement which was so poorly translated that the department had to come up with jurisdictions for you know for failing to adequately assist immigration client the i j a even found this asylum application timely because this immigration lawyer essentially abandoned the case and failed to file it on time so none of that was taken into account when he's considering the two thousand and six testimony she hired another attorney who did a better job and she submitted a corrected statement prior to trial that clearly stated she met him in two thousand and four it was grief so the judge took some some apparent inconsistency as i'm trying to extrapolate on them about living with this person who explained that he had business dealings outside of the house he would be in the out of the house for a long period of time she testify consistently with that some of these things were more specific evidence that was gained on cross examination which is perfectly understandable when you're considering a trial situation  six circuit case from twenty team so the whole point of an individual hearing is to develop facts that before were somebody conclusive and to flush them out the whole thing about being threatened with a weapon she now instead on previous occasions she didn't list each and every time that he had a gun around her or discharged a gun but she mentioned that he threatened her he also said that she didn't mention that he was affiliated with a gang well the gang issue and we came up the trial to be  sure and in the d end the amended statement before that however she didn't mention that it influenced with the police that they were his friends that they wouldn't do anything to help or because he gave them lots of money later he talked about his drug and alcohol use it's all in there and i just want to point out because my time an argument so limited that it isn't merely a question of well the evidence could prove you know provide one explanation of the other which i know de circuit is rolled on this is that rare case like you must overturn the credibility it's absolutely without foundation the biggest mistake was in the he sides his biggest reason was the two thousand and four vs two one thousand and six dollars which isn't significant the other one is corroboration with the record of miscarriage the in the immigration judge missed characterizes no doubt developed all of his own he has made a mistake it's flat wrong when he says that she miscarried of six months and she's test but eight the record at page  and thirty nine dollars clearly shows that it was eight it was in the six month of that year but it was not her six month to present a pregnancy and for all of this the judge was viewing this case through a lens when she failed to take into account th of circumstances you know what was not said about the totality of circumstances and the circumstances under which statement statements were made he never mentioned her level of education never mentioned that her case was under an interpretation in translation never mentioned that she was a victim of in the analyzing this question of three times miscarried due to physical and sexual trauma the efforts that she made prior to trial to to have better counsel the fact that her counsel abandon her case was suspended under three separate jurisdictions it's all there in the record that she was nervous of the credible theory at the border of course and all the circumstances he even mentions the lawyer when he allows the it please the court might be after the attorney general of the united states the record simply does not support opposing counsel the assertions in this case the immigration judges adverse credibility determination is supported by specific and cogent reasons and petitioner hasn't pointed to anything that compels a contrary conclusion for example the discrepancy between twenty million forty two thousand and six when she met her partner it's significant st off it doesn't have to go to the heart of the matter that's been made clear by congress and the statute that's been made by this court repeatedly it doesn't have to go to the heart of the matter but it actually does it's very significant when her entire claim the basis of her entire claim is her relationship with her former partner so things such as when she met him her living situation with him frequency of abuse and threats all of that is very significant to her claim so when on three separate occasions petitioner stated that she met him in two thousand and six both and credible fear interview with an asylum officer before she even had the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel she was pro se she says i met him in two thousand and six and her handwritten sworn statement she wrote it herself she had knowledge of this for some time she wrote two thousand and six and then and her asylum application she writes two thousand and six that's not a one  apo i slipt i said two thousand and six i meant two thousand and four that's repeated and separate occasions of separate people petitioner stating that she met him in two thousand and six and then testified that it was too late two thousand and three early two thousand  regarding the interpreter and and using translation person i'm not sure that that was entirely briefed in petitioner's open opening brief and nevertheless most of these if not all of these immigration cases have some sort of interpreter translation that doesn't negate repeated and consistencies and omissions and contradictions and also regarding the alleged and effectiveness of former counsel st off once again  that petitioner hasn't raised the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel hasn't filed the claim hasn't moved to reopen proceedings based on that and the claim really doesn't add up when you look at all of the inconsistency that have nothing to do with former counsel like the one that i just mentioned with the what they interview the credible fear interview which is that two thousand and six but then in testimony says two thousand and four that's an instance that has nothing to do with and recounts another instance is  living arrangement in petitioners nd sworn statement after she already had new counsel she specifically says that in two thousand and four she decided to live with her former partner they moved in together and she said they started living as a living couple that seems very straightforward they started living together and then during her testimony she says we never live together and she's very clear we never live together you visit me once or twice a month but we absolutely never live with me is as her quote i think she says a multiple times and so these inconsistency isn't discrepancies st of all once again they do go to the heart of the matter even though they don't have to because they deal with how often she saw her abuser but nd off they have nothing to do with their former counsel because her former counsel wasn't even involved when these separate statements were made even if we look at the two cases that petitioner themselves are most the positive in this case the garcia and kate's even if we just look at those both of those support d the government's position in both of those cases this court found this court upheld the agenc inconsistency isn't omissions we see a lack of corroboration with the medical records with her mother's affidavit that omits two of the three miscarriages she doesn't mention them even though petitioner was very specific that she told her mother about it she doesn't talk about her mother being threatened her mother never mentions she was threatened with a gun by the former partner even though petitioner testified to that on appeal what we have you are is simply for twenty four she's not she's not referring to anything else about when they matter then because that wasn't the intent of her letter she was there to can corroborate the evidence of that miscarriage for thirty nine of the administrative record is a smoking gun it you must overturn the immigration judge to get a flat wrong and use a factual matter against her in order to find that you have credibility when he was wrong on the facts and so her testimony was correct and consistent none of the other stuff is significant because it doesn't come anywhere near the heart of the the case is the abuse of her and what she suffered not when they met whether it was three or five years before the abuse began living together with so many travels on business this is what she said and then on cross examination when she's asked what that they lived together like she could easily misunderstand as be together like full time when he didn't travel it's an easily understood thing if we don't have this over reliance upon the minor inconsistency and the factual mistake  his decision about the magma finish that yes ok thank you very much so the judge mentions that the lawyer was a lousy player ok and that he abandoned the case so he knew about it this isn't a statement this is ineffective of counsel business there's a reason why you've got this confusion and he has to analyze this credibility decision according to the law the a circuit has overturned even though it's a doesn't do it often this is a case where it has