like the end do type constraints i won't go into them in detail however the facts in the laid out in detail in both brief i would like to go just to the heart of the issues the immigration judge held that petitioner lacked credibility specifically portions of her story were implausible however i do not believe the issue here is credibility i believe the issue here is due process specifically whether petition hearing of the immigration judge was aggressively questioning petitioner regarding her journalistic skills specifically the immigration judge believe petitioner rushed to judgment but their stories in the public with them without doing adequate research first  strongest argument in your view is the due process argument i believe so your honor i do and i believe that is directly correct correlates to the credibility in that the judge found her not credible but i believe she was in fact credible and it was just the intimidation of  judge that prevented her from being able to explain herself either because she was cut off when she tried to explain issues or she was intimidated to a point where she told the judge she can't concentrate and she couldn't answer the question because she was so scared and then later these issues issues in which she was either cut off there were certain points where she was trying to explain herself and i just cut her off and said i don't want to hear that and then later found her not credible on that very issue and she didn't even get an opportunity to explain herself and there were other point at one point the government attorney was asking petitioner about treatment she had received for a head injury after she'd been attacked and petitioner didn't understand what the word treatment might meant and she asked for clarification of that word and the judge literally snapping at her for her word choices when she was armenians using a translator and it's not even sure if it was her where the translators were but the judge continually jumped on it for every word she chose and the petitioner was constantly on the defensive trying to explain what is meant by this word was this this and this and then it completely got sidetracked in the story and in the end the immigration judge found are not credible for issues that i believe has she been given an opportunity to explain would not have been an immigration judge also didn't think i'd consider all the evidence petitioner tried to offer a video cassette of one of her stories the military hazing story that was a televised gory the immigration just refused to accept the videotape just simply saying the court was not set up for it and made no attempt to see if the court could be accommodated could accommodate her video cassette and then she took the immigration judge later the founder not credible for presenting evidence regarding her story the immigration judge also discounted her medical provide an affidavit from her sister in law were going to her condition after the rape prior to the rape the petitioner had gone to the police station to report a ransacking of her office when she went to the police station one of the police officers pushed her up against the wall toward the paper and threatened her and then subsequently she was raped so she writing a very emotional violent crime and then having previously been attacked by police of it seems more logical that she didn't come forward with the rape to the authorities are present and if you say that she watched him come forward about the rape or or whether she did what she did eventually come forward about the rape and the immigration judges issue is why she didn't immediately disclose the rate it was her issue and she i believe her reasoning was it was it was very traumatic for her emotional was very private was hard thing for her to come out with especially in the solemn interview with a male asylum officer she had difficulty with that but the immigration judge took difficulty with that whole issue one of the other issues that immigration judge brought up was her press credentials she dou therefore the presidential must be fabricated but there was never any doubt that she worked for this journalist agency not that i'm aware and but i also noted in the brief that the passport and her visa stamp had the same almost similar pictures the same hairstyle the same clothing presidential the silent application but those are not in question the authenticity the judge went on setting this guy credibility issue and also said well even if she's credible there's no nexus between the persecution that ordered her to stop her investigations and the attachment suffered were company by threats and comments about her work and were carried out by government officials including members of the military and police officers i had i had just told you and from that point if they are not granted asylum they're able to appeal to the board and thirty eight percent of those cases persons are granted asylum so in this particular case the for the i only thing i want to make clear is that the immigration judge was there and was observing the petitioner and was taking into account the background that she had from that asylum application and from the country reports and putting us all together and finding that something wasn't coming true but she said we have a specific case law about telling us what isn't hanging together jelling and so my head was swimming with all the credibility or incredibility findings and we've done quite a bit of work to list all these out let me just give you an example which stops me kind of cold the judge says well i think it's implantable that if this guy's holding a knife to her throat  threatening her and might rape or that she would black out i suppose if there were medical evidence that says people who are about to be raped short don't black out they run out that would be one thing but it seems to me that is it according to her decision and felt that there were portions of the petitioner testimony that were quite detailed and that that there were portions that were not and that this particular aspect she thought that there should have been more detail about the letter but the fact that the finding she made was it just seemed impossible that she would black out i mean how so you know i say ok well to be honest just so you know where i stand like on that point inconsistency is necessarily between aspects of the testimony and in fact he states that she thinks that there are you know that it is a fairly consistent story that the petitioner tells from the unsound application all the way through the hearing but that perhaps there's an belarusian and in particular she pointed out things such as the asylum application where the petitioner said that she conducted substantial research regarding an orphanage article and that with orphan instructor when it in testimony it came out that actually she had conducted this significant research now while this may seem minor in and of itself that in conjunction with the fact orphanage that she talked she talked to somebody i mean take a look at the new york times they just you know copy from the a p or whatever she she talked to somebody she went talk to the principal she interviewed a teacher that's wh again that's a good example so you know it's a question of you know what i think you're not quite good enough as an investigative journalist you don't do quite enough research and thinking well what does that have to do with quickly she had some materials but she didn't have like the whole rascal but as a journalist and the immigration judge could reasonably infer that she would have access to all of her articles and if she did not she stated that she still had some friends that still worked in journalism there that could potentially potentially could have gotten her those documents but that's the kind of speculation that the judges are supposed to be engaged in i mean it's not a question of whether she brought a computer desk or whether she was even using computer whether she had internet access in armenia you have the immigration judge imagining you know what it's like to be a journalist in the u s and then transferring that to what it's assuming that they were just staying to agencies the police from military that they would have she would have been able to make a police report but if not at least at the very least the immigration judge reasonably took note of the fact that she didn't submit an affidavit either from any of her colleagues or from her sister in law that she was living with at the time to support this and again it all sort of comes back to the fact that this was a journalist she was she was a journalist and therefore she could have she she she knows what it takes to back up a story and essentially an immigration judge felt that she didn't do it here and just with regard to the point of the due process and being allowed to submit a video  a military hazing incident that record doesn't contain any evidence that there was a video cassette of the petitioner was trying to present she did reference throughout in several times in her testimony i can step which she wished to present but it wasn't made clear what that kind constat had the immigration judge just simply know that our stated to her that they had already determined that that wasn't going to be admissible and and  to say that it was much the case that was a containing information that was much larger then more in general are supposed to general conditions rather than a specific claim and that's what the immigration judge does throughout the proceeding she did have an interpreter yes well at one point in the  transcript was related to the school story the orphanage story not the military hazing story and immigration judge indicated that they had spoken about the tape but that she determined that it was not it was not relevant a evidence that would be a good example of that because that is about the orphanage story and one of the problems with her credibility is she didn't come up with the orphanage story but now they will literally then show the videotape how does that square with the finding of lack of credibility as not providing the actual story well again my in bringing it up and trying to point out the fact that it's not clear from the record the basis exactly for why the i j a didn't allow which she is standard is that she said that and that she was only able to hear evidence related to her asylum application and not evidence related to general conditions of schools in armenia this is all this is also what i'm extrapolating from the record my point actually in bringing this up is that if there is a due process concern about that it should have been raised before the board because that is precisely the sort of thing that the board could have taken notice of and correct