involving at the petitioner who's a political activist a fighter against corruption and active political person in armenia fight against corruption and paid for it very dearly he was beaten repeatedly tortured interrogated arrested forced via violence to give up his political opinions he when he refused to do that he was tortured further hospitalized and ultimately fled to the united states for safety zap all that how do you respond to that changed country determination it's safe for him to return country conditions have changed now the question is what is the petitioners obligation on appeal to to grant relief in the face of that factual determination or does he have to show your honor i believe that if you take a look at the immigration judge's decision which was in part a the immigration judge denied asylum in two ways first it denied asylum on the basis that his past persecution wasn't severe enough so that even if there was no well founded fear a future persecution that he should still be in the past persecution still some fear that he has a reason not to want to return i understand all that but would you go to the second prong the question i'm asking you as the persecution the burden shifts to the government to rebut the presumption of future persecution and jay apparently concluded that the government had met its burden because he reached the determination that country conditions that changed i'm still waiting for any of my question i guess the rights we have to show in the face of that determination in order to to show entitlement to relief at the court of appeal i believe that the finding by the immigration the reason i bring up the other point is because the immigration judged used the erroneous adverse credibility determination to find that he didn't warrant asylum in the united states based upon his past of his past persecution alone and then required the petitioner to produce medical documentation to support his kind because she had used faulty interpretation a due process violation and other really very very minor issues to make it obvious credibility determination if one is to look at the i j a is decision because i find him to be uncharitable i needed medical evidence to support this persecution names changed the players had stayed the same and the corruption and the political violence and political persecution continued in armenia and that was supported by the two thousand one country conditions report produced by the department of state which the government  they effectively sad ok we're going to be able to carve out where there was faulty translation and where there wasn't and i don't see how a judicial body can say well we'll say that this portion of the proceedings was affected by translation but this portion wasn't once there was a finding a faulty translator interpretation rather the finding should have required at the very least remain and if not a finding that he was in a case where he received a green card or became a lawful permanent resident through the marriage he was able to enter the united states on that these but and this interview i believe may have come into the record due to the faulty interpretation but if one was to take a look at the asylum application and the documents submitted in support he came in and each word which he testified to in his family testified to the fact that he obtained no longer is in power he lost the head of his organization supports the current president of the country condition for me it's quite clear that the head of the internal affairs ministry which is the ministry that allegedly persecuted him has been tried and convicted of murder there is no doubt that the people are explain and which may or may not be material to his fear central to his claim as we said is there any other principle one you think shows lack of  honor if i can just rush through a few issues first of all i believe that the government misrepresented this case in regards to the interpreter even the b i a used to adopt a portion of the i just decision agreed with him but then refused to do the appropriate thing which was to remain for a new proceeding or to reverse the credibility determination and the credibility determination is based on these faulty interpretations i think it marriage i believe was non material and he was truthful and straightforward about it and was never given an opportunity to respond to the i five eighty nine application remark as the justices pointed out what's your although not artfully stated it was brought up that he continued to appear returned to armenia and he testified to that i believe it was grieved at the b i not fully admit that i do admit and it was briefed to the ninth circuit and in which was written by justice white hart i think this very issue of artfully bringing forward that issue but there's a difference between artfully stating it at all and in regards to the change country conditions i believe this court also has the right to take you to show notice of even the two thousand and six department of state country conditions report the same things are happening now the decision in moves in deals with country conditions reports which find that the corruption the political persecution the political violence continues and the government keeps pressing the issue that he was vague he testified that when he after he was beaten and begged for water he was asked to drink his own blood after be having his nose bashed in with a chair i don't believe that that is vague or ambiguous at all and i don't think it supports the finding of the credibility