something which goes to the credibility finding which to me is the only troublesome part of the case is there anything on the record there's any other other way i can get that information as to whether in fact it's customary in armenian not to sign judge denied the introduction yes he was in can you help me is there any the date on the letter is wrong is there any anything other than just cited is wrong is there any reason in anything that helps us understand why it might have been wro well it shows that the government has come back looking for them and it also helps as far as the idea has a question as far as the government was persecuting them just enough evidence without the letter to establish that the government is behind  with well you don't know who did the shooting i mean you can infer that but that's not a necessary you don't have to necessarily infer that someone was shot but there's no showing that the person that shot also there's no showing that after she was threatened at that she complained to the government about this her husband was a government official us about a pretty high government official and  to find out what was going on well i believe both so even though it's not in the record office not in a record i don't want to hear it quite frankly i mean  did not fall into the statute as far as asylum there was private bill two issues there was also the government was the one who was persecuting them and also if they could safely relocate in the other part of the country well that she had a well founded fear of future persecution well i think past persecution kind of shows that there there's a possibility of future persecution and i believe the burden then shifts on  why what is her best to define in new york she never gave it a reason why she did not have the postmark for the letter and the letter itself is somewhat ambiguous concerning the dates and so forth why didn't she testify and why did she take that and lo to even market for identification well the hundred cases in front of immigration judges there are a lot of problems first of all our language barriers to enter prisoners certain meanings in certain words i mean then certain languages mean completely different when there is the possibility of future persecution well possibility are you seeking asylum or withholding here actually it's all right so in other words you're saying that the attorney general should be term and whether or not  petition never actually moved to have the envelope admitted into the record for identification or otherwise but i think the more important here the more important issue preliminary issue discussed  that it wasn't brought down below it's not a forest and no it's not and in their brief to this court or yeah i mean like we're showing up here for oral argument kind of i mean it's a guesswork for us as to what they're going to come in and argue you know he's not he's not he's not on a what they're going to argue she changed it and said no it was her husband's cousins who lived in the house then finally she said no it was her husband's parents once lived with them in their house so that's a minor thing but particularly telling is incredible testimony that this individual came in to bribe her to kill this patient patient she was feeding yes she did not in any way feel compelled to art inform this patient well  made the patient that's that's one thing more compelling to me is you can tell her her husband never complained anyone in government i think is a high ranking official who reported directly to the as he called the president of the city what specifically said that or it could be already done so he does not say i have no idea he says what you just read which perhaps my interrupting obviously my interpretation of that language is different than yours or well let's put it this way and he's a born in the side of the government obviously he's you know politicizing against the government you know like the government is trying to overthrow the government through and through democratic processes i guess and someone comes takes one to kill you know it doesn't sound all that random if there is any number of things that it could be attributed to it's that's one possibility but there are any other number of possibilities what would you  that you don't do it and first of all you tell them that you can't do it because of your oath or whatever and then you're in the in the parking lot and the shots fired  continue to live in the contrie for another three and a half months if the government secret agency is out there looking for me and wants to kill me arguably they can accomplish that would there be anything wrong and i'm not saying that i'm not talking to any disposition we're making here since the fact funnier may not be in the highest tradition of the immigration court with there be anything wrong with remaining back for account of any protective graph unless we're going to identify physicians who refuse to kill their patients as a particular social group so even if we assume everything to be the case it still was not persecution one assuming single shot the first fusion and two even if we assume it's persecution then it was on account of any protected grounds she was a political and she had no other cost the government i mean this was soley because she refused to kill one of her patients so on that basis she can't show that she's entitled to protections ok her patient was injured by the government's secret agency who shot him that's what she said yes sir you know the hippocratic oath and her obligations as a physician it had nothing to do with politics oh yeah that's that's what she said  me i understand i understand and agree with your position up to this point let's just say merely because a doctor choose to follow the commands of the old and doesn't kill patients obviously then doesn't make a political  yeah it's something for the purposes of what i'm about to say that her testimony is truthful when a secret agent of the government comes and say i was i'd like you to kill this person and she says i want to do it and he then threatens her with bad things possibly including death a month or so later she shot out and she believes it's far the same people whether the same particular individual i'm not sure that it matters at that point i think it's at least a plausible argument that this has turned into something political because she set herself up against the government and the government has to chose to treat her as an adversary and she has maintained her position in the face of the power of the of the government's  think i mean it would be a leap to say that they imputed a contrary i mean she took a contrary position but it wasn't on account of politics writing like that it was simply as mentioned her position as a  and i guess perhaps perhaps the argument i was making i mean that is under the technical under the specific terms of the i a c understand that was on protected ground i understand what your stance are but i mean we're building a  building in order to get to that point you know there's a number of steps we have to do a number of assumptions and number of others is the purpose of my question i was assuming that is not true and i understand that we have a serious difficulty about whether refuses to kill the patient she's threatened with death if he doesn't kill the patient she is shot at because she doesn't kill the patient and she says i'm out of here and she never goes back and that's strikes me if the story is true and if  i can see that yeah ok but your care argument really is based on credibility it does that rise or fall on credibility and the issue before us is whether or not the credibility call was adequately family her entire family continues to reside in armenia there's a number of things that the government could do if they in fact want to track her down so in that regard it kind some these governments indicated and it's my reputation when they said they did that it's like a boy they grieve it's true it's kind of very short and the reason twice they ha testimony i mean only possible argument against agree and it's a real one is that you didn't then make a legal argument coming out of it that in fact you were counting on the testimony is more thorough than i get in many briefs the problem the problem that there is one is legal think i'm going to conway versus kerry lewis