got into trouble and was demoted to some rural area in his post because he allowed the construction of three churches and then when he did not want allowing the building of the three churches and then with so and then after they questioned her about this because there was this little bit of a difference then she said he refused to worship the buddhist right which again was different than anything that had happened previously or that she'd said previously right now where that happened because i don't know why that happened but i think if you read the record and you compare her testimony with the declaration you c agreement to build the three churches was that first major step that pushed him to be arrested down the line and in fact as to that particular issue it really had nothing to do with political activity which was the central  of her argument was that well there's two different issues here issue one is that she and her husband are christians and a majority buddhist country and part of her claim is that it seems to me that there are two or three different roads that she goes one road doesn't really go with the pro drug democracy rally one road goes into her husband i don't see that has anything to do with political stuff it may have had to do with religious stuff but i didn't see anything in her general application that will do dealt with religion it dealt with political and democracy let's let's let's look at that the worry that i have is that i have a standard or a view here substantial evidence she says that this she was had political problems and that is for political activity that we have to do something for and that she's participating in pro democracy rally but then when they question her about democracy and political activities and political organizers and all as she knew nothing she didn't know about it she didn't know who organized it she didn't know why it happened she didn't know what it was anything about it now seems to be in the eye jay's mind a big deal i represent her employer because in general she was in favor of democracy for example when later she was fired from her job because she answered three questions in a way that the employees didn't like her sure to show her general grass roots roads in a crowded mindset that she was in favor of a leader who was married to a foreigner and some of the other questions that she answered so i don't think that just because she herself wasn't that educated in all the tenants of that particular party if any but that she just had a general pro democratic stance that that the i j a thought she was inconsistent about what happened but that she herself wasn't basing her claim for asylum and that it was based on her what happened to her and her political situation but she about this i'm pretty i'm pretty calm confident of my understanding that we shouldn't be suggesting that her failure to disclose the rapes should be used against her own credibility that seems to be our law and i'll seem to go with that my worry is that in this particular instance i have a problem with her husband's imprisonment and what was said and why and on what activity i have a problem with her general view of political activity and then it seems as if the i j a is suggesting and the that no claim of physical abuse on the application when the physical abuse is a dramatic pivotal account that is another basis for the same in credible determination now my worry is i can go with our case law i can say that this is the way it is but if i talk about what happened with her husband and i talk about what happened with her knowledge of democracy and political activities i don't even have to get to the claim of physical abuse or the failure to list it or the failure to talk about it and i can still i still based on a substantial evidence for of you have to find her incredible that's my worry can you address that as i stated earlier that  attached to the rape problem well there is this separate there's two omissions one the way she was beaten and to the fact she was raped now one of the things that the judge clings to is finding of lack of credibility so that's really the question and maybe a different way of asking which i just missed that if you throw out the rape problem which seems to be contrary to our answer or the other grounds for matter first she says that her husband was arrested because he committed the building of three churches and then later said that he was arrested because he wouldn't worship three buddhist monks which the found was impossible because the buddhist monks were also subject to a lesser and lesser persecution of military government at the time and didn't find that a possible explanation in any event petitioner has argued that the inconsistency with the husband's where about someone does not go to the heart of the asylum claim but if you look at the big because it's her husband her husband's that part of the testimony i get your honor if if if the court doesn't find inconsistency there there is still material omission of any mistreatment whatsoever on and usually consistent inarticulate throughout the transcript but i find it difficult to find she could be considered to be incredible i just want to let you know that there are other things if you do with that your honor has read the transcript several times there are things that come out in the transcript hearing that are not specifically listed by the  sufficient to uphold the adverse credibility determination if we were determined that because it's pretty real idea for a variety of reasons there is no substantial evidence to support the server's credibility findings into effect and i can address that now so quickly what we were trying to do is recognize that this was briefed in two thousand and five no reply brief was filed and since then the intervening case last made it mistreatment by the prison official prison guard in two thousand and two did not rise to the level of persecution now neither a petition or a position he didn't challenge best so arguably stands but the  government as well briefed in this case in a manner only addressing the be a easy decision and so the government's trying to have an opportunity to to be a to clarify exactly alternative grounds we just are at the point aren't we in this application where one might have established past persecution and therefore has a have a presumption of future decision and its decision on no past persecution from my back just so i can be clear about your position are you saying that if the credibility finding is not former inconsistent sees which then the government was giving her a chance to escape explaining where she went even to a different thing that was totally unexplainable so that no correlation with what the two inconsistency is were that's the way it happened well the fact is your honor which the way she explained it completely mirrored what was written in her declaration because in her declaration reflection of many incidents that the husband allegedly participated in and the statement that it was implausible i read it to understand that it was impossible that he would have