example cations for political asylum and withholding of removal based on the following three reasons first the adverse credibility finding made by the immigration judge which the board attempted to reinforce is not supported by substantial evidence second petitioners in this case suffered past persecution on account of political opinion and membership in a particular social group lastly the government in this case has been unable to rebut the presumption of a well founded fear future persecution on account of the persecution in this case the reason i raised this vision is because government counsel has argued that the court should apply a seven year old state department report where the state department has certain positions regarding individuals like the respondent but in this case and in this case i believe that we must first address the issue of credibility and the immigration judge gave three reasons why he believed that the petitioner delete the kitchen in this case not incredible first page that this you know was inconsistent about where and how many these men came to look for him at his father's house and there is direct testimony in the record regarding that but when asked very specifically of these men to come to look for him and his father in law's house his testimony from the beginning to the end of his testimony was that thousand nine to one of his brothers had been accosted by these individuals in fact the judge himself acknowledged during the proceedings that the petition had more than one brothers the petitioners testimony in fact was they had four brothers stabbing incident at his political asylum interview and on that basis the immigration judge found that he was just simply not credible however this court has held that and omission is not the equivalent of an inconsistency there is completely right so there's no way for this court to look at that interview to determine exactly how that interview was conducted was he asked about the incident was he given the opportunity to explain it isn't all that we know is that he testified at the hearing that he was not asked about that particular instance was fine in his very next statement he says i was also afraid that they would also kill me immediately after he said that and then later on of the testimony he says after two days the individual had died and so here is what the attempted to explain look at that particular section of the record where he says that he was fine after two or three days between rachel's five neither after his very next statement is i was also afraid that they too would kill me and so clearly i believe that that clarif petitioner testified about the entire incident conclusions were being drawn from simple statements from one statement the immigration judge appears to be making credibility terminations without look in the context of the entire record before making that decision and the men witnessed the murder and thereafter was persecuted as a result of that witness he was persecuted because he was actively involved in the party he had been kidnapped exactly three months prior to that offense he had also been told and threatened not to appear at any of act after that when you saw them kill the person and there will be many answers then i scared i scared i mean it's very difficult to follow this transcript and i run away from these places and somebody some some of the person give me shelters