example of where there is no substantial evidence supporting the inference of the fish was not credible in the petitioners direct testimony he testified specifically in nine hundred ninety two when leaving the country there were two separate written his family for the government to tan what is different then and he did specifically say whatever was asked of me filing getting coffee it doesn't seem that that's sufficient without giving us an opportunity to first you know explain the perceived inconsistency  short amount of time the stress seem to be directed to getting him to stop doing certain things like google we only go by within the record he testified that if he were to return he would continue to be involved in his received did not pass persecution there's a presumption the service can have an option and remount to try to overcome that presumption but i don't think they affectively did in the proceedings below because they cited and one thousand nine hundred seventy actually conditions report that indicates that continue in any event they said it emerges rather actually very interesting like i mean it's just more of a credibility with respect to the glaring inconsistency that between the testimony in this town avocation is there's no mention whatsoever during the hearing of the murder of his brother that's killed but with respect even if it were true the majority of this court's cases when dealing with harm to someone else that way to family members analyze that as as going to whether there's a reasonable likelihood of future persecution attempted to target the petitioner and when they couldn't find the petition or the beat of the spam only in an attempt to punish and intimidate him in other words he was the target and in attempt to punish him they took people that he loved and hurt them that's not at all the evidence here here the evidence level of most senior former members of the regime and only in their home cities in other words they could relocate to other parts of the country and avoid the harm and insults hernandez this court based on the very same country report that was submitted here same year same that with the spector most answers most questions he was very forthcoming very quick in advancers when it came to describing the threats long pauses that to me is in absolutely the type of specific articulable reason a pretty fast clip and start talking about torture you slow down because of the pain that might be associated with and i'm not suggesting the case doesn't say what you said so when i was asking him about than the one he received personally and it's very hard to believe it when you see personally he was less emotional valved in the in the written threats he received subsequently so i think on this record although that's a distinct possibility other situations that's not i think the sufficient that is building but only a subset of that element holmes is sufficient for federal standards if the case law on the circuit said well there you can look at the outset evidence outside of other doctors to see whether home was a part of that particular subset of that promulgated the convention against order processing immigration court and not yet in which that was until march twenty second but it's crazy regulations as march twenty second handing application for asylum and withholding automatically in the committee that you belong to that the threats there continued he had newspaper articles from guatemala translated showing that the guerrillas were still active and yet the judge felt that him without any prior notice for not bringing additional