testimony that she provided was inconsistent and increasingly dramatic as the case unfolded at first she said that there was one incident during which she was there was an attempted rape on cross examination all of a sudden there were three or four incidents and it wasn't the adverse credibility finding wasn't just based on this sort of evolving story about the alleged attempted ra fact her direct testimony was restarted at the continued hearing from the very beginning because the judge wanted to make sure that that was correctly interpreted there's been no motion to reopen on the ground of ineffective assistance understood what was going on linguistically in the case and he obviously was data supplied with the interpretation because he knew that the immigration judge would excuse me would grant a continuance should there be a problem in the case because she previously did it and that is that is in the record in this case in addition again she hasn't made any sort of motion to reopen with the board for any grounds which would be the appropriate remedy for an interpretation problem or an ineffective assistance of counsel problem neither of those things have been done she hasn't given the agency the opportunity to redress those problems is in fact they do exist in this case which is again the proper way for her to have gone about in fact would have been could they have been considered which again they couldn't have been because they were not properly they were not properly submitted in the proper format  story changed every single time she tried to tell and the story changed significantly for example the one invented she describes in great detail even that she allegedly received by the police because of her to the hospital by friends then she said well stop because my girlfriend was there there was this ever changing story about the context in which all of these things occurred and exactly what occurred to her these these are not plane without these particular incidents that she described is really nothing before the court on your client claim it's not they were minor inconsistencies they were the only thing that she actually talked about and in terms of  petitioner's other arguments she specifically she had talked about some kind of humanitarian asylum in her brief again that humanitarian asylum presupposes that she provided a credible claim at least of past persecution and she couldn't have done that if in fact what she's asking is some kind of humanitarian deferral she needs to approach the department of homeland security not this court for that type of  relief in addition at the time of her hearing she didn't she didn't provide any affidavits or testimony from her parents or her sister who were present in the united states at the time of her hearing they didn't appear there was absolutely no participation and she admitted that they knew and could perhaps corroborate that as to insult her claim and they didn't they didn't appear  r i have a question on procedure you or the government's lawyer maybe could answer and that is right now are there are heaps of your clients testimony in armenia that were in the testimony that was true for the other caves existing that you have access to so that you could take those thieves to some other interpreter