counsel who argues on the immigration judge at st credibility fighting here contrary to the government challenge outburst credibility finding we concluded that the respondent has not shown that she's eligible for saddam unchallenged is not the same standard as not meaningfully challenge your honor clearly the board recognized that by stating the facts as to why she indicated that she was harmed two times times and that should be sufficient to put the board on notice and the big i did not even mention this years and she  say yes your honor because they're not required to use that precise language that we're used to and with that she mention the number of times she was hartmann that took up about almost an legal language that the court and us attorney used to but mr baird just so giving that giving her circumstances as a six or seven years old woman who had no access to legal exhausted the administrative primitive as a race in the issue in her letter brief by putting the board on notice of these issues and offering them for an opportunity to correct the immigration judge here your honor thank differentiate that out of the nine or ten times that misfired suffered physical harm three or four of those times she suffered severe and lasting physical harm that the most severe cases where she was physically harmed for example that resulted in her left eye and losing her vision in her left eye and resulting in a shoulder injury that resulted in chronic pain additionally during her testimony of ms thought to clarify and told the government if it is to another area questi by the addition of that date and her application and it seems to be no more than a trivial mistake rd the i j a focuses on ms barnett's the mission of to address says that she briefly  to both consider the factors that go towards credibility and not credibility and the ideas opinion focuses mainly on the trivial inconsistency s and doesn't fully credit this barney explanation that he provided during the testimony  saying those determinations about the v a that those have been way he to me is correct because petitioners a brief raise just an entire factual summary upper case agency shouldn't make any specific arguments or even general arguments about the i g is findings on a st credibility rather she just restated all the facts and just restating the facts is not enough to preserve every argument premised on the facts imagine of a party while just the facts section of a brief but never never even mentions the word yes so morally on the question of how many times but there have been attacked in ukraine another obviously very important issue on the question of past persecution the i j a found that a stern constantly changing figure were anything like that or other what she's done is just reiterated the facts of her case you don't make specific arguments about the i g s findings or even general arguments on credibility or and just to just to clarify an issue that my opposing counsel  encourage petitioners to file everything they've got and the petitioner here by i believe several one hundred pages of documentation and statements and the end result would be that the behavior be forced to sort out not just the central arguments that have been preserved but then who on every single one of them on pain of mistakenly finding labor you know be fisher doesn't have very good explanations for these constantly changing number why should a minute address those so i agree that at st credibility was the primary finding by the hi j that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what the petitioner would have to challenge at the  even that she did challenge here and because the v a did close and parse filings here and determined some issues were preserved and some issues were not indicating that the v a wasn't just being lazy here they did has raised up out of the merits of those credibility findings as i understand it i don't think this corporate reached those issues at this point you know the core agrees of the government that the credibility findings were not preserved in which case the cour er customs and border patrol people to be excluded i do not recall her making that argument your honor did you mean in front of the b i i don't believe she argue specific she did raise specific facts here your honor moving on to the nd issue that the council raises that she change gears to raise the procedural argument here was meant to enhance her claim or to hide unfavorable facts so in light of the assertion that she has not provided an agent i respectfully disagree with point she did explain i think your hon