recitation of the cases that have been stated other than the recitation of the facts sometimes it helps that i'm usually the same counsel who appeared at trial on was there sometimes it hurts because i'm too close to the current thank you the two main issues seen in our view to be did i waive the issue of improper translation i believe it's quite clear i did not i brought that up in oral arguments on the administrative record i wrote there in the notice of appeal to the b i a it was not addressed in our brief an appeal to the be any that's undisputed we did not and i do think that this court has ruled that that's enough and i hope that you'll agree with me that  second issue is the credibility in the judge's finding of adverse credibility during that trial there seemed to be a disconnect such as when the judge would ask the respond and my client how many apples are in the basket my client would give an answer that almost in as crazy as my house is blue we had a lot of problems and i didn't mention that more than mentioned that in they were mirror statements they were not supported in his oral decision by any of the ones in the record so i believe that there was a clear and convincing testimony by the responding who was eighteen years old at the five there were some discrepancies in his testimony but i think they can clearly be addressed to the translator is as i pointed out in our brief on i think there's absolutely no question that this court can take judicial notice has been pointed out about the problems in armenia these state department reports that are part of this to administrative record clearly state that there are terrible human rights abuses in armenia and i'm happy that this court is aware of that my client obviously did not have to come here and age eighteen he absolutely right your honor that's correct his father was very politically involved and he had switch political parties and did testify to that effect and then got out of the country and left his family behind and and the father didn't want to testify and it turned out that when we got close to the trial date the father did agree to come i don't really know if the father was afraid of other armenians here coming to court or finding out about it or what his motives were but i wanted to do everything possible to both work my client's credibility and i think i did i think judge kilroy was not reasonable fact finder and and i very pretty good morning your honor is again my name is carolyn mccarthy and i represent the attorney general of the united states in this case as noted by the courts questioning of my cat posing counsel the heart of this case involves the credibility determination once again and the problem here is that he tried your fact the immigration judge after hearing all of the testimony concluded that the petitioner's statements about say that well you know there were problems with the translator but the government maintains that that issue regarding translation has been waived and there is really there is no law and in the circuit that says just standing stating a claim on a notice of appeal is sufficient to put the government on notice as to what it is to now waive that issue so finding in listening to the story the immigration judge has to consider that demeanor of the rationality the internal can consistency in the inherent persuasiveness and when viewed when viewed viewing the testimony as a whole the immigration judges the trier of fact in these cases concluded that this story just was not persuasive that there were some internal inconsistency and on that basis there was sufficient reason to find that this petitioner was not credible and the record at this level of review as noted by judge could when it does not compel a contrary finding it just does not compel a contrary finding therefore the government's position is and we would argue also that the translation issue has been waived so he can challenge that and if there are any other questions that i can answer for the court i'd be happy to be an ok