injury to his arm appears to be an injury just soft tissues only specifically the elbow ligaments so they contract his testimony that my arm is broken with her expert testimony that while the injury appears to be the soft tissue specifically elbow ligaments and they say this is an inconsistency i don't think it's an inconsistency obviously was a medical doctor one is a layman and they describe things in different terms but the important point here is that this is not an inconsistency upon which the immigration judge   she's a stanford assistant professor and she does volunteer work at survivors international in this particular case the case was postponed repeatedly i got to say this man's attorney was a bumbler an absolute bumbler by the time this thing provision for a doctor was to hear yeah i absolutely agree with the distinction and you're right sometimes he says i cannot give it any weight and at other points he says i will not but he says i cannot and will not at least a couple times i think the record  now i actually don't think you have to reach that question because it's probably only prejudicial the exclusion of the medical report if in fact there's substantial evidence to support the immigration has negative by a traditional indian medicine practitioner something called the hakim dr lawson her report says that he reported he did not see a doctor and the government says well these are inconsistent  well they're obviously not inconsistent he didn't see a doctor he saw a traditional indian practitioner known as the hakim again and this is not something that the immigration judge relied upon and it's not something it's not a basis upon which this court could affirm the immigration judges conclusion that mr singh lacks credibility the only one of the four reasons that the immigration judge set forth that i really want to talk about here today i i believe the others are covered pretty well in the brief is the issue of photographs the immigration judge said that there are serious questions as to the petitioners identity because he admitted lee sent photographs from twenty seven through one twenty nine because the only real issue here it seems to me is was he consistent or not if he was consistent in presenting his testimony on this point i frankly don't see how it affects his credibility because he was being very forthright in saying i sent the pictures to and he says according to the court translation i have them taken here and i have them sent there and that's the crucial statement the follow up question is oh so you took the pictures your picture was taken here sent back to india and then they issued you identity cards but immediately at that point mr singh clarifies and he says now the picture that was used was those that were taken in india they were not taken here and it continues to say that throughout his testimony there i record and it an apparent inconsistency between that first answer but it's in mediately clarified when he says now actually the pictures were sent from here but they were taken in india i brought them with me and this continues on a page one twenty eight and the judge is insisting well didn't you say that the pictures were taken here and the middle of page one twenty eight is that line fifteen he says now now the pictures were with me i mean this is a classic example of  miscommunication in immigration court we see this all the time it's heat of the translation came out one way but in the very next statement he clarified any answer made clear the pictures had been taken in india and he brought them with him to the united states that's not the kind of inconsistency upon which we can base a negative credibility fine it doesn't justify returning him and claims his life is in danger to a country from which he fled i reserve the balance  later in the record when questioned by the immigration judge as to why he was arrested in march of ninety ninety two then he explains that he was giving a speech in front of five hundred or six hundred people and that he was quote unquote advocating particular there were three identity cards that were in evidence at the time of the hearings it's two of those cards had been solicited by mr assange when he was living in the united states using apparently student despite the fact that he had been in this country for one to two years at the time and presumably his parents knew that not only he was gone but he was no longer a student and number two the issue the photographs of him that were somewhere years old back to india to prepare for crew or the identification cards and perhaps not his work permit cart it at the very least it shows that at one time and i recognize that he had testified that he had some skin problems and therefore was necessitated to i have his hair cut that doesn't explain why he wasn't wearing a turban and again that's not those inconsistency in the context of this claim which it which now on the basis for the immigration judges credible adverse credibility just termination he had no passport nothing else to show no you know background school information nothing else to show immigration court at that time in point the immigration found that in this case and i quote i do not time that the response allegations demonstrate any reasonable possibility that he would be harmed or threatened if her turn to in the end at this time that's in the record  the immigration judge implicitly found in that hypothetical assuming that the petitioners is credible that he had established because if the immigration judge was unreasonable very quickly first up with regard to the statement of the immigration judges the response allegations don't demonstrate any reasonable possibility that he harmed or threatened frankly i don't think that's a that provides a reason that's subject to judicial review because i don't know what it means there's no mention here or discussion about whether the petitioner established past persecution there's no mention whatsoever of the regulatory presumption of future persecution that would arise upon a showing of past persecution i personally think that what  two different reasons i mean first as i was just saying the immigration judge made a finding about past persecution didn't apply the presumption of future harm that would arise a punishing of past persecution and the agency needs to do that in the first  the issue about whether or not the presumption could be rebutted or not again it hasn't been decided by the agency so it's not an issue before this court but i would point out that the report prepared by the immigration service  presented by the immigration service to the immigration judge in this case says quote an individual picked up in the past might still be at risk unquote that's on page two forty seven of the administrative record and that's the document was prepared by the immigration