determination the i j based her credibility terminations on a number of factors the board on review explicitly declined to endorse a lot of those factors but then finally ultimately decided that the wife and i wasn't or why is this relevant to what we're doing here i don't believe so your honor because the board explicitly criticize the client indorsed the ideas decision to the extent that thing to note about it is that the father family has a very poor memory and he he got his daughter in law's name wrong that's my client's wife's name wrong she got her year of birth wrong he was off on the date of their marriage by two and a half years she he's under the impression that her son left left any of the united states in one thousand nine hundred three my client's testimony was and the service documentation pretty much properties that he entered the united states in february twelfth practically every every event the immigration officer asked my client's father about that has a year that can be verified more or less from the record he got the year wrong so i don't think this i don't think any inconsistency in and that's one statement mr singh's father states that his son was arrested four or five times between the years of two thousand and two thousand and two response that's what i'm sorry mr singh's testimony was that he was arrested of course in two thousand and three not between two thousand and two thousand and two now this was provided to mr singh prior to his final hearing and he had five months to clarify that and get  had already testified to being arrested in one nine hundred ninety three and then this this i mean that's the best cation was conducted in the middle of the proceedings if you will or three quarters of the way through and the results were made available to mr singh and as a result of him receiving this report mr singh got further evidence from the start which was the other translation or the other statement from the sarpanch as to what he actually said but didn't seek to clarify what his father claim that he has here consequences under our circuit bar of the failure to do that you want to do the circuit in this circuit state that the petitioners to be provided an opportunity to explain however i would say vehemently that he constructively was when this was handed to him five months ago and the statement is clear before him that this is what his father said in in he was aware of the fact that of course there was discrepancies with that within the same report of and statement that he was he responded to that but did not in this case that is of course assuming whether or not whether whether he was asked about that which i'm not exactly sure of but that is the circuit law your honor that's correct that he used to be given an opportunity to respond to such an inconsistency and the failure to do stuff i understand your argument that he was given an opportunity but the consequences of failing to do that is what well i guess it would have the bulk of redirect especially the into or the last half of the last hearing so i don't think he was actually confronted in the form of questioning with with that statement and asked for the the inconsistency your honor pointed out on the service report that he that he said no no as far as mistreatment suffered by the leaders at the hands of the police i think i think i think that inconsistency with the rest of that statement itself including the very previous question which he he replied that he himself had been arrested and that his son had difficulty with the police if i think it underscores that it's because for a number of things possibly possibly a language barrier possibly possibly memory issues question eleven and three ninety eight of the record is extremely open it and has anyone from this village ever suffered any from pasadena physically and or mentally by government officials and or police at any time ever and at any time he said no think i think the fact that he got all these other dates wrong regarding relatively verifiable material just calmly questioned whether he he would distinguish between being arrested in the sun being harassed for several times four or five times arrested and the suffering in any capacity from physical you know physically or mentally from the police any time and as to the number of arrests in three years opposed to four or five i think another thing to be noted is that my client's testimony was that the police came to he was beaten again so given the very nature of his interactions with the police i think the four or five times a fairly reasonable response and given that the number of years that a laughs between the incidents in question and and the time that the father