guess my point you're honest because she has no meaning independent recollection of what went down in her testimony is really just an attempt to reconstruct what occurred at the interview it's the notes that were primarily concerned with right that's my point i don't think her testimony adds much to the think that's very important it begins by saying you know first me and my brother were together and that might suggest that she's talking about the second arrest as she and her brother were arrested at the together during the second arrest but then again you know and during her first arrest she was arrested at home and eight o'clock in the morning her brother at the time of the first arrest was fourteen or sixteen years old so you know it's entirely possible that she's talking about we were together when the police came that in january of one thousand nine hundred seven then we were separated inspector mistreated me i was there for six hours and then she recounts especially the facts of her first arrest what happened during her first arrest and the immigration judge sort of assumed that this was all about the second ar what we think she's talking about it's true the police officers didn't beat her only the inspector beat her so you know with respect to the big inconsistency here when you know the immigration judge does the central one i just there's not  support it because we don't know what arrest was being asked about here because we don't know what questions were being asked a long way in fact if you look at this narrative there's not a single question noted in the narrative that one so we don't know what questions are being was the question did you return home well if so this is substantial evidence arguably but if the question is did you return to punjab that's a different matter we don't know what question she was responding to and her notes don't say she went back home that's sometimes i will i will write something down like if they say and she gives an untranslated number in punjabi or january and she gives a minister speaking in punjabi supposedly it's pretty obvious that they're saying the fourth of january the bottom line is here she admits in her testimony that at least with respect to dates even though she's never been trained in print jobby she makes no based on her understanding of what's being said without waiting for the translation that alone is enough to undermine the reliability of these notes even if the notes were reliable with respect to dates and i don't think they are obviously the law in this target is that generally discrepancies with respect to dates are not significant enough generally not significant enough to undermine credibility but especially when you have an asylum officer is jotting down notes based on her minimal understanding of what those dates might be  duplicate for a library card and a copy of her driver's license position are readily admitted that these documents were not issued to her in india but rather were procured after she had left for the united states and mails to her by her mother be a transcript or document every aspect of the interview before the asylum officer rather the relevant inquiry is simply into whether the documents relating to the interview before the asylum officer are sufficiently detail its own set of its own set of problems so i'm not not sure what the point goes to that she speaks english i was to take a step back regarding it would be it would be one thing if the if she if she was if that is a little bit is a little bit different i mean that's a little bit harder for us to reconcile that the asylum officer herself is asking about training data she comes up with three different years and then its entirety and the problem accrues from petitioners repeated inability to correct her testimony is not the situation in which were simply presented with january fifty ninth or january fifth of ninety s three quick points howard did immediately correct yourself on page two sixty five of the record the immigration judge yourself refused to use that passage are to justify her adverse credibility filing that's not an issue that she court and the second point here the government says that the immigration judge based or adverse credibility in part on her inability to authenticate her i d documents the board of immigration appeals and affirmed that aspect of the decision if you look at the board's decision they adverse credibility finding in the board in a firm that aspect of her just now finally insofar as the government saying there's cow or you know spoke english well enough to correct some of these things that happened at this time i was the immigration judge said the exact opposite and her decision on page one twenty eight