good morning good morning counsel in front of the judge yet the judge in her decision adopted him correctly which was interpreter error i can refer to are you referring to the two thousand that returned to armenia that day  ok the return date is critical because there was a demonstration on the thirtieth of october two thousand in which the petitioner vision was a minor at the time her mother was a member of a group called intellectual or media and a journalist and her mother had attended that and the judge mischaracterized in her this in the immigration judge's decision that the petitioner had attended that when the petitioner testified she did not the mother was the one who attended the mother apparently was engaged in some we don't know for sure but saw repetitious videotaping of events and when the  to the home and saw this young woman along with her mother and a couple of other journalists all were arrested but titian was held in detention for four days she was severely beaten she was threatened with rape she was threatened with we can do anything we want to you and the purpose of her detention was to get her to sign a statement that would implicate her mother in antigovernment act what about this matter of whether or not she received water one during custody well it's interesting of course i was there and i had an opportunity demeanor  pardons the interpreter clearly that the question was did you receive bread and food and water and she said no and the reason she said no was because the question the united states on a j one exchange work study the sun and had returned home and all of these events occur yes and did she speak english not well my initial communications with her when i met her which was prior to the initial immigration judge hearing the required interpreter for most of the conversations in my office she speaks english well now she's much older but at that time we required an interpreter and we had one on our staff and in court of course we had an interpreter throughout the entire proceeding do you attribute the issues regarding the water the return date and the issue of the communicating with her mother by found primarily to translation errors you know the water food and bread when i do ok that seems to be one i do because it's critical to understand that she returned to armenia on october twenty sixth the demonstration took place four days later the judge implying that she left the united states and returned on november twenty sixth the date which only appears as a hand written  notice by i presume an examiner at the original style an interview i was not present all of the other evidence including her passport stamp which is in the certified administrative record shows that she landed on the twenty seventh of october two thousand on route home so clearly if she left the united states are cobra twenty six what with the time difference she landed on the twenty seventh she was present at the time of this demonstration though she didn't attend  demonstration as the gratian judge indicated now what about the telephone call during the time her mother was in jail to the very interesting question i've never gotten to that seems to me that's the most difficult issue you have  detention as we know in armenia from others may even be a surveillance and a home down think tension we just don't know this woman who is now twenty seven years old has had no communication with her mother since that phone call on that phone call basically her mother told her don't call me again and they're going to be listening with they could be listening to cars as she spoke with a neighbor and the neighbor who was very reluctant to tell or anything just told us that her mother was  beaten that's those are the facts that we know we have no additional information and we certainly had no information at the time of this you ring this girl was well if i'm just watching this i understand the assertion of the government is that this conflicted with a statement in the affidavit yes i agree that it conflicts but we have no under wind information as to the accuracy of that letter that was sent by the bar when the seeming contradiction occurred and your client was about to give an answer the government attorney asked started after a horrific ation was cut off by the i j a and she had no further opportunity to respond that is correspond with your recollection that none of the corresponds with my recollection but the off the record conversation was about this issue and then when the went back on the record the judge ha well i've been practicing immigration law for thirty years she was a trial attorney and i knew her well at that time and i had many hearings in front of her this one just started off on the wrong foot on the wrong day and the credibility issue started when we walked into the courtroom and i just have to back up whatever he or she concludes with some substantial evidence here yet here she makes statements like this is an outright lie yes i don't see that very often and i j's opinion it can you shed any light at all as to what happened that created this ill will on the part of the i j a i don't think i can actually characterize it compliance here now the words was there an individualized assessment which is required by come out of that there was no or anything further no i mean i'm through thank you can't thank you we'll hear from the government mother was persecuted or is being persecuted we don't know that much we what we do know is that part of the problem here is  haphazard way in which the petitioner presented her case throughout and you have to i did not read this case but in going through the record and trying to understand it i had to really hot and cold the part and the it seems to me that the one that that we're here so very short decision and doesn't enjoy a lot of elaboration and and to follow on with that and you agree that pooler no longer is good law right it's absolutely did by regulation yes is there any asylum does not even have to be a dealt with at all is that your position the judge dealt with that did she not seems to me counsel if we can't resolve i think we can to firm on credibility determination and i would suggest it's a at least a close issue yes then we have to send it back because it was clearly an abuse of discretion to rule it were denied only on actors credibility but actually if you read that station the judge switching gets to that if you stand on the record there's nothing to show that she's more likely than not to be tortured and that is more than a credibility determination that's a substantial evidence determination but it's faults is not part of it's fault isn't it i mean if you look at the record no this woman's mother was clearly part of a an anti government political group she was clearly jailed this young woman's testimony was that she was jailed in any kind of of a cat claim under under bas n membership in a particular social group includes membership in the family so in this case is to suggest it is she used the concept that she will doesn't have a reasonable likelihood of being persecuted does not just ignore the role of her mother under torture it's not persecution it's torture it doesn't have to be for any of the of the five reasons in the statute for an interesting question these days isn't it well it is except not well and it isn't a question in my opinion in this case because she was just beaten up at the station house i mean i don't mean to make light of it but that's all another insta which you don't you don't believe that being threatened with rape being beaten up at the station house being deprived of food and water is a form of torture not in this case to make her life well torture under the regulations should require more than what happens here this is we've got a very slippery slope when any time you could build up your torture torture requires under the regulations i don't i don't have it in front of me so i connote what we think of as torture you have to be you know under the control of the authority you have to have this profound  i think it's a very slippery slope when you when you start saying anytime you get beat up as horrible as it is that you're talking about torture she may perceive it as torture council can i go back to the credibility of terminal yes your honor this third what is your best argument my best support the i jury's determination that the petitioner was lacking in credibility with stated that the mother was in detention and had been in detention at internal security in the capitol since february of zero three whereas she her i think it's a declaration but her testimony clearly indicates plainly indicates that she spoke with her one time in the latter part of the year she arrived  here and not before and not thereafter even though she tried and and i disagree with patricia when when i say it wasn't resolved because the petitioner was asked by the immigration judge  can you explain why there was this apparent discrepancy between the letter that you proffered and your testimony and so forth and her answer and i'm quoting here the i j a must provide specific cogent regional reasons for reaching an adverse credibility determination and minor inconsistency as are factual omissions that do not go to the heart of the asylum claim are insufficient to support it