finding here was based on him permissible grounds first he relied on conjecture and speculation not facts second he focused on the minor inconsistency that did not go to the heart of the asylum claim third surviving was not given the opportunity to explain these alleged inconsistency and in the instances where he did provide some explanation the i j a simply ignored those explanations in his decision and so forth and most troubling the immigration judge in this case repeatedly misstated the record and on various occasions attributed statements to mr vyvian that in fact he never made in his testimony and then he lied on his statements for the finding of adverse  this court must consider three grounds cited by the immigration judge as the basis for his adverse determination none of those findings were based on substantial evidence they were first of all silence in a hospital report about the extent of injuries to mr via its mouth secondly a photograph that showed this is a bug and smiling and third of august participation in political protest after being tortured the first time so look like to talk first about the silence in the hospital report the first issue this case your honour's is very similar to this court's decision insisting versus ashcroft at three a one third of eleven or nine in the thing case the petitioner was arrested just like mr vyvian and beaten and he provided along with his testimony a corroborating note from the doctor that described injuries to things lips nose feet and warning what was silent about burns on the on the arms and the immigration judge found that that was an inconsistency too to singh's testimony this court found that determination and that this court will not blindly accept the credibility determination made by an i j so i think on the standard it is clear that this court should review those credibility determination in detail and not only that but where factual determinations of credibility certainly deserve deference if the i j a is acting contrary to the law of this circuit which i believe the i g did here that does not that is not entitled t he did not rely on the this discrepancy between one day and four days but i think stepping back the hospital report mr survive you testified that he was that he was beaten the government doesn't dispute that and there's nothing in the record that disputes it and it's corroborated by a hospital report the hospital report as you know it page eighty six of the record describes injuries all over mr vargas body so i would submit that even putting aside the mouth injuries it doesn't go to the heart of the asylum claim because it's clear that just like in saying mr vigeland was in fact substantially injured and there's no other explanation in the record other than that he was beaten and tortured by the authorities in armenia i think the i j in this case for six independent reasons violated the law of this circuit with respect to this mouth injury question first it was based on speculation about what a doctor in armenia might or might not put in a record in a hospital report second he relied again on silence in the medical report which is against this court's precedents in the consider every plausible and reasonable explanation and in this case the i j a took every fact it was in figure was the mother smiling which she smiling for this reason or that reason this accident there are other explanations he took those relief from this court your honor mr a viking and was given a fair shake by the system he has had his matter before counting today three courts he has had his notice because it's an important one on page eight of the petitioners appellate brief and i quote the appellant stated that during his hospitalization his face was so swollen that he had trouble eating and had to be fed by a if i may your honor a matter of his style your  misunderstandings or mistranslations cannot be the basis for applying that first credibility and i would submit that that's what happened in this case third the there are other instances in the record that i'm sure the court is from the you're with but would just like to draw the court's attention to it which the i j misstated the record and mr of against testimony particularly as it related to his son's arthur arthur's injuries at page one fourteen the i j a found that arthur bar agreed your honor and so just in summation we would request that the court send this matter back to the immigration judge for determination about whether or not he theory reason is a reasonable fear of persecution and we would specifically