know the one interview same can be relied upon because it does not apply to comply with adequate safeguards first this one statement is written in english meaning that mr de corps could not read the document on his own he relied on the interpreter and what the very st page of this document is that if you has any fears concerning to his return to you need to let the agent know so that he can get an asylum interview and this case that is exactly what happened after this interview there was an final interview where he has t immigration statement indicates that you know that the record was read back to him or the statement was read back to him in the french and he was given an opportunity to make corrections do you think that's wrong or why is is that he told the agent that his mother had a valid and yet on the written version he said that he had never met his mother is not a reliable source but isn't right isn't it up to the immigration catholic faith and then he went to church with his friend describe the church that they went to and then moments later in his testimony says no that's now i'm talking about a protestant church that appears to backpedal and say whereas initially he claimed he gave up claimed that he was protestant before the immigration judge claims that he was then currently catholic that he became catholic before he left therefore the fact that he mentions in a sworn statement that he was protestant makes no sense the fact that in his credible fear interview if he is catholic as he claims he says when he was asked about the name of his church he says not all churches have names and gives no name for the church but then the leader claims that the catholic church was the paks church and that it was the protestant church that had known all of the confusion surrounding these claims certainly cast doubt on whether or not petitioner did practice these christian religions that he claimed and the fact that he does differentiate between the two certainly shows that he understood that there were differences and that these were two discrete denominations of the christian and he didn't simply refer to his practice religion as christian without understanding the in addition to this the omission in petitioners claim intil his direct examination testimony of witnessing someone being stoned for refusing to practice islam certainly was an omission that was really reasonably relied upon by the agent in this case it did refer to a rd party certainly and not to petitioner however the fact that it went directly to the heart of the year he was asked why can't you go back to get me he said because i go certainly does not indicate that petition was denied such protections the record shows that the immigration judge told him that if he didn't hear a question to ask to have it repeated and the instances in the record where he doesn't ask a question is repeated and he is able to the question several of the points at which they're claiming that there appears to be a problem seem to be portions of the record or petitioners confronted with an inconsistency and changing his claim or adding to his claim with regard to the ten percent globally right and that if you look back at those portions of the record beginning of gauge one hundred and thirty eight and the record it makes it makes no sense for british air to be claiming when i was sick sometimes i went to see the clarification but even if it wasn't until the next hearing when they're claiming that there was a problem this was noted for the st time after this inconsistency aros the immigration judge was in the best position and didn't extensively question the petitioner at the and with regard to the motion to supplement the record that was filed on thursday or friday in this case your honour's this was not this audio recording was not before the board in this case edition or some are already filed and had denied a motion to reopen reconsider on this issue they had years to obtain this audio recording or put it before the board and have not done so and contrary to the claim in their motion to supplement listening to th does not make it apparent that there was a translation error or show that this is you know clear evidence that there was a mistake made i think it should say as much light on the issue as the transcript in this case and the fact that it wasn't before the board proper course would be to attempt to present it before the board if that is their their argument or their statement if you're honest finally i'd like to if i could address the petitioners nonresponsive answers at times during his hearing no numbers he claims that he lived two kilometers from the center of town that his house was fifteen meters away from his other families homes the fields were a worker twenty kilometers away from home he describes distances between cit part he says multiple instances he said i don't understand i don't understand i don't understand and yet the immigration judge didn't question anything with regards to the translation issues he just continued on the petition request