a date there were confused you know that's not sufficient for substantial evidence or for at this credibility and it isn't hard to guess you can count on how significant the discrepancy you for example with regard to the salon burning down her testimony were that this happened while she was still in armenia and give a date that was consistent with that then gave a couple years later when she was already and then her cross examination was about eight months later and i don't know she was just confused when she said it was in two thousand and six well it could have been in two thousand and six because she was in the united states already in two thousand and five and when that was pointed out to her she obviously realized that she just made a mistake in terms of the error but everything else was correct but are we compelled to  continued for almost a year and the extortion turning to the the police officer chief of police officers taking over trying to take over the property so give me i have i have one inconsistent in the cross examination she was just confused with the year of the incident i don't believe that this is you know major inconsistences this inconsistent just in the mission and her she was not represented by an attorney it was a lay person she was never actually asked the question whether everything was translated to her the first time when she original declaration all the cross cross examination the other thirty asked whether she went over the facts and she said she did she did she told the story to her friend who wrote it down who was not an attorney  medical or dental records were introduced to support the injury to the teeth yes for the dental it was receipt that the dental work was done to her forty's now she testified that it was that she damage five teeth but the fifth two it would did not require any work on it you know that it was it wasn't done any dental work on it and did she ever lose any details about each truth what you know not as much as it was during the testimony but it is obviously there last a lot of specific questions were asked and therefore she just described the injuries more in details and the same thing for the actual rape she has two daughters that will suffer the consequences if she does the disclose that and she didn't tell her husband because she was afraid what the husband would do when she found out when he found side that she was raped he she thought that he just going to do something stupid and create more problems she didn't go to the doctor until five days later it's a well known fact that a lot of rape victims do not go to a doctor immediately right not to be i mean in looking at that factor c for the purpose of getting some financial gain from insurance where might find testified that there was she didn't know about the concept of insurance in the nia for the properties they didn't have that so  testimony except the i just found one inconsistency in the date when the possession legal possession of a steak and of the property and that was i'm going process started in october and it ended when it was a fire so just because the husband picked up march as a date of illegal possession of the property doesn't mean that it's inconsistent there was no specific respond please the court john hope of the attorney general substantial evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility finding the issue before the court is whether in light of the tissues admitted contradictory and inconsistent statements and or a persuasive explanation for those the evidence compel contrary conclusion the immigration judge has the threshold the termination to determine the credibility of the witness in this case the titian or in determining credibility the focus is on what's in the mind of the fisher she dishonesty she truthful in order to find out whether she's truth or honest the immigration judge pursuant to the i and a statute focuses on the words the credibility the audition i'm sure you've been around these cases enough to know that a fairly standard problem that we run into that then supports an address credibility finding is that the initial statements get better as time goes on the written statement and i am a bit lawyer takes a look at it and how example when the indian written statement is that the extortion of hundred dollars a month went on for quite some time and she testifies it goes on only from october hollowing march so the story gets in a sense of being favorable to her her testimony makes the story worse for her which suggests to me she's not embellishing she may be misremembering if she remembered properly what had been stated nationally she'd be sticking to the story so this is not an i q test this is a truthfulness test and she's testifying to a time period that is less favorable to her than is in the written record and yet you're holding that against her as an inconsistency and a reason for disbelieving her of we submit to the court that it was proper for the immigration judge to focus on the inconsistency regard regarding the extortion payments as the court just pointed out in her in her first statement married from her lease or statement of age six forty two actually stated a group of guys came to our shop and told my husband that from now on every week he had to pay one hundred dollars reading further for about two years we struggled in scrape to pay the thugs one hundred dollars one hundred dollars it was a lot of money for us to lose but that's the written st statement so in a written statement she says weekly in her testimony she says monthly right in her written statement she says it was for two years that in her testimony it was for six months well  october to marsh yes in another important fact your honor on this point so made i think you just made my point well that is to say restoring when she actually testifies gets much less favorable to her that it that is true yeah that is true but we would submit that that's not dispositive merely because it's it's not as bad when she testifies for example she was a schoolteacher that earned forty dollars a month under her testimony she was paying six hundred dollars an extortion money under her written statement she was she and her husband were paying over ten thousand dollars in extortion money so we said would submit that the details surrounding the testimony regarding extortion were perfectly proper for the immigration judge to consider follow the money and even though the money wasn't as great under her testimony the point that she exaggerated so significantly and suggested and exaggerated the details were factors for the immigration judge to consider the extortion payments were not the only fact that the agency focused on they also focused on the admitted inconsistency regarding her injuries rid of that resulted from the alleged sexual assault when she testified she testified that two confusion as to former fire but i didn't find any inconsistency in the oral testimony well your honor it certainly presented different facts over time regarding the number of te involved in what happened to the teeth for example when she was confronted with her testimony regarding whether the teeth were indeed knocked out she said no they weren't knocked out that they were knocked loose but knocked loose meant knocked down and so the immigration judge was faced with that well and was there different question the do record does not establish that two teeth were replaced the don't record just states that forty were treated and she was charged one hundred dollars for the dental does so the government contends you contend that the record shows that she has all of her original te would submit that the the testimony regarding the t v is conflict in contradict i asked you to ask you a different question i think i was a little hard for me i didn't look at the actual dental records so i'm not i'm i'm relying on states that for treat were treated and it doesn't say anything about teeth being replaced and so i'm not going to take a position that's not in either the immigration judges or the  board's decision regarding whether or not she has all of her keep the important point we would respectfully submit to the court is that she was complicating on this very significant matter and the documentary evidence that she offered regarding the dental treatment from time to time so loose knocked out hanging well the translator seems to think that in russian there's a nonsense and it's the same word for hand an arm you probably saw in a transcript i cannot believe that the russians have the same word for hand an arm i don't know russian but there's something from there some problems with the translation but your honor the british were does raise a process issue whether or not she received a full and fair hearing well i'm not making that point is rather that if we're going to rely for a finding of address credibility on one point the english translation of what she's saying is that they were knocked out and in another point the fascination is that they were loose on another point doesn't argue the translation issues were the root of any problem regarding the dental treatment or any other aspect of the case we would submit to the court that she does assert that there were an audible  that there were no problems with the inaudible translation first of all the board contrary to petitioners counsel specifically states on page six of the administrative record that they considered that they were inaudible aspects of the of the of the proceedings but they said the titian are is not a den of by any answers that were problematic that compromised in any way the credibility decision of the immigration judge the other point is that  petitioner asserts that the immigration judge was unfair and perhaps heavy handed in his conduct of the in her can conduct of the proceedings but we'd submit that there are two pages two portions of the record that are helpful to the court in that regard from page three forty one to three fifty five three the immigration judge just explains that during the proceedings the recorder failed and so there was no transcription and so the immigration judge said the council will how should we address this in gave each of the counsel the opportunity but the judge said i've taken very detailed notes how about i read my notes and so the judge for in this ten page or so portion of the record the judge reads absolutely all all of her notes and the counsel acquiesces the counsel agrees the counsel states that that's sufficient there's no problem and accepted the judge's  petitions counsel said no your honor we don't have anything further so i think with regard to the process issue the key point is that the titian has an established prejudice either at the agency or before this court with regard to either the inaudible  transcription or she doesn't raise questions is the court validly expresses a concern whether there was a language problem there that's not petitioners assertion that that was that was a point and in that regard the ink is now you did it's very difficult to follow whether the transition was correct or not and primarily because the interruptions conducted by the i j a was numerous and every time the questions were asked they were the you know how many interruptions there were like fifty eight interaction with the judge when she would to take over the questioning whether it was on direct or the cross and that was very confusing too and that's wh to details in the medical records and dental records if there was insufficient records detailing the judge should have followed the rare rule and requested corroborating documentation and give notice client to provide those documents if that was the issue because to check to see where that the two teeth were knocked down is very easy we didn't have to get the records from the from i mean you know we could have just gotten from the dentist here locally but there was never it was never