credibility finding stating that she found that their testimony discrepancies in their testimony inconsistent and also a document that was submitted was altered and for that reason she found them inconsistent your honor the the chest intercept claim your honor that given to the government originally like your honor it's a dot looks erased or you know there is nothing on the original your honor that shows any kind of alteration it is a blank as to that section that was considered it was blank and the copies that we submitted to the court because we didn't have the original had i refer to my i don't one forty seven or one forty eight right twenty two so we see nine twenty two something your honor and i don't know whether that's what this is all about that's what she made her credibility finding on original received  the question is why would adding that date help or hurt anything that was my question also your i didn't see that it did help or hurt anything and you don't have an honor immigration judge makes a point about how the testimonies regarding there were discrepancies in the hiding testimony and your honor if you go through the transcript it's clear that mr hope was never actually asked any questions about hiding about before yes how about on this occasion yes you want to there's no discrepancy because she was never asked the same questions he was that's her and they kept on asking her different questions on hiding and she kept on put a case together it's not that we're trying to parrot the testimony of one person to another we're trying to tell the story of the person and the secondary witness can bring something else to like it's not necessarily inconsistent or an omission where we don't ask that question nobody asked the same question about the videoscope for example or the second incident your honor when i present the case you are right i've asked mr hope to present his facts and i ask different questions of the secondary witness your honor i didn't ask questions  of an original letter and there's no explanation why these are not identical it's not really an answer the question why is the addition of the scribbling the unexplained addition of that scribbling court a copy of the document and it's not an exact duplicate of the original that's problematic secondly the purpose for introducing or submitting this latter goes to the heart of correct your honor so why the why is it significant because when a party offers a document to the court saying this is a copy of an original and it's not a copy there for some has to look and see whether anything is gained or lost by the vision or the vision says well it looks suspicious of the things missing but you know wife regarding the time periods in which he was allegedly in hiding petitioner stated he was allegedly kidnapped hospitalized for eight days went home for a month and then began his regular life quote unquote and resumed his political and business activities on the other hand his wife said he came home from the hospital he was very scared and he went into hiding seven or eight days that month she said he had seven or eight days in that month he was home not consecutively that he was so scared that he would go into hiding at times during that month i inconsistency lies your honor and the fact that petitioners that he resumed his regular life he said i was harassed but nothing major happened they get a very different view of this time period resumed my regular life on the other hand his wife said he's like he's very very scared when he comes home so much so that he hired seven or eight days that month we would send it your honor that is an important inconsisten good for this of undermines the things we would submit your honor that undermines the tensioners claim he has this is a critical time period with for guard to his claims because he's allegedly kidnapped hospitalized for eight two weeks before june twelfth one thousand nine hundred sixty election and three weeks after that election very specific he said he went into hiding on may twenty eighth one nine hundred ninety six after having participated in a demonstration for which he was later charged as being a terrorist the police sought to arrest him so he goes into hiding on may twenty eighth this testimony again is very explicit that can be compared with his wife's testimony on that issue which changed at least five times that is those changed testimonies are recorded in respondents preferred page thirty three interestingly in the r what the dispute is all about and why the credibility determination was made yes rick to do that and if it isn't sufficient i can send it back oh yes your honor i guess my point  finder might find petitioner credible or might find not credible this court must affirm the agency decision when you go back to the left and you have if you look at it with some integrity it's making a statement type type form about facts that exist that day or the pencil change you know way facts the force of that letter to a reader i don't care which co you read so why should that have any effect in terms of a credibility thing because your honor when a party purports to submit a copy of the document and it well your honor the interesting part about it petitioner never offered an explanation in fact when i was at this conference he became apparent to the court petitioners counsel said yes in the signature seem to be deferen well is taking the the content of his statements that as he played a leading role a very important role in this demonstration that allegedly occurred on may twenty eighth one nine hundred ninety six he said that the police came and made a report because persons were injured at that demonstration in the police report he was named as someone who was responsible for the demonstration he said that he had paid his name appeared on a notably in the one nine hundred ninety six country reports the state department country reports it stated the b n p activists use deadly force to disrupt opposition party gatherings that's on page one ninety one of the administrative record your honor in other words taken together petitioner claiming to play a leading role he's named in a police report they're seeking to arrest him you want to point is well like a bona fide charge and that those things taken together support the immigration judge just conclusion that petitioner may well fear prosecution