case is not just about one woman who participated and womens activities are and who is persecuted for her participation this is also about retaining meaningful judicial review of immigration judges the government posits that demeanor findings in their entirety are unreviewable and that adverse credibility determinations in general can be upheld as long as no reasonable fact fired fact fine you could come to the conclusion that the immigration cap judge came to regardless of the factors that were cited on the record and just to make things clear from the outset this is simply not the precedent established by this circuit and the immigration him judge himself was harboring no illusions as to what the law was when he resigned it i own standard of review and the administrative record on page fifty when he correctly said that adverse credibility terminations must be based on specific cogent reasons which are substantial and have may i ask about that i'm i am troubled by the i j a is determinations about demeanor saying you know she she wasn't emotional she was kind of stone faced in that sort of things because th is inappropriate however there are other findings such as i spoke in front of thousands i didn't speak in front of everyone how do you what then is the status on appeal for you have that kind of a collision between a general demeanor and a specific credibility issue you make a good point your honor the decision is not altogether clear that the demeanor finding did not color the remainder of the findings presented in this case the judge if we are to throw out the demeanor finding i think it would be  clouded his decision making with respect to the other inconsistency because as he says in his decision that it wasn't just one of these factors which was problematic it was the entire thing which he believed was a memorized speech but at the same time he preferred the preface this with the statement that the applicant independent of this finding with respect to demeanor and this finding with respect to one inconsistency that might fail there's another inconsistency also goes to the heart of the claim and therefore it should be upheld on that basis and if it's not explicit in the reason there's a problem with independently sustained finding well i think in this particular case the the judge bradl even in his own opinion recognized what her claim properly was it wasn't a leadership role within the organization it wasn't making making speeches from the organization i was as he even said in his made a number of other findings very carding inconsistences would you address how those would stand up without the demeanor finding and whether any of those got to the heart of a matter well i comes out in court oh no i didn't give speeches and she really didn't explain why she worked where most of the mistranslation gave no evidence of anything else of a mistranslation but i would say the risk to others which believe it because right there in court she has been given a chance to say no i haven't looked at it i didn't understand what it said it has been about back to me she says no if i've read it i've looked at it i stand by it i swear i raise my hand and swear under oath under penalty of perjury that everything i said is something and the standards of fact i think there's three kind of stages in this process one is when she was working with the preparer to make the application  not certainly i found hasta translation in english and then i'm assuming now when she reviewed the application with counsel it was translated back from english into her native tongue and wanted to determine whether tell you where the first let me let me offer corrections not now you know it could still be held against her at that point but at least she was a good explanation she says look i didn't have a lawyer i was prepared got a lawyer now i have a lawyer it's been translated for me in terms of what