because of limited group of officers have the attorney general's discretion to issue an a notice to if your form that the identity of the immigration officer is a juror just roger stiction fact that the department of homeland security opposition and in the body of that opposition they asserted that the notice to appear was issued by a supervisory asylum officer but didn't present any evidence of that fact it's just argument in changing pleading and  acronym if they published it somewhere to say that this is the acronym for this officers title then the petition would concede that that they met the burden of proof but that's not the case here finally there's the issues of her asylum application which turn on one credibility and it turns on the fairness of the opportunity given to the respondent to defend her credibility after hearing the immigration description of the medical treatment that she received in india and that was just his speculation about it but even dr would do when confronted with a patient with her complaints he took issue with her personal decisions and her decision to marry and explains in her opening brief there's explanations why a police officer could make such a point and the immigration judge didn't consider that judge found a factual discrepancy where there was not he said that she that the petitioner had testified to that and the style of interview that she had never seen her father after he was arrested by the police and then at the hearing she said that she her father was held in a but there is no conflict there but that's consistent testimony the nub of the of the case that if your suspicion of is that there are alleged conflicts in her description of her party the immigration judge after removal hearing the problem with the judge's decision to admit that tape was that the removal hearing statute twelve twenty nine requires that a complete record of the testimony violation there's no prejudice to the credibility issues are significant in this case before you go to the credibility as you've let me ask you something if this case were speaking at ten or fifteen demonstrations thousands of people at a time she told asylum officer she never spoke she only attended five or six and most she went door to door her secretarial functions consisted of she appointed secretary after she'd proven her dedication to the cause after six months and these are material because they go to the heart of the claim that she's a known speakers seeking to thousands and thousands of people ten or fifteen times provided a membership card in the federation even though she says she and her mother went to the federation and said i'm being punished because of my activities with you you own me and they provided her with an insta come to the united states the record does not support that they cross examined her on the basis of these notes which she had not or really in effect the transcription of the interview the asylum interview which she had not yet had access to person that would have mattered if she had said i didn't mean that or something but what she said was it was an incorrect translation he had six weeks and six weeks to hire a fifteen times to thousands of people each time that's not judge didn't ask for any cooperation this was just part of the issue at the hearing so the government bringing up the lack of corroboration now as it is is irrelevant the fact that they responded over the official had a six weeks to prepare for begs the issue the immigration judge record the tape was but the the transcript of the tape was not it was the duty of immigration judge if he was going to admit that into evidence to make that transcript because it's the immigration courts obligation under the regulations to  date and they asked for an extension of time and they offered that partial transcript as it is to support their motion for a continuance because the judge would make a decision on that date and then the judge based on those