officers notes and referral during the course of testimony you know one of the main reasons he objected is that the asylum officer was not made available for cross examination which was very important case because of the manner in which the notes were taken i say this because if you look at the notes you will see that they are very very concise in that they're not even even though they're typed which did the petitioner testify to membership in a political group called the georgia national front or did he not during the time of the asylum interview now on his application he clearly states he participated in a political group in the course of the proceedings he articulated with greater detail because he was asked about his participation and about the nature of the group its goals and aims and what kind of relationship he had with the group process is not one which the applicant simply states tell his story for an hour and then waits for the officer to to make some sort of conclusion this is the officer's job to elicit detained he the answer appears to be twenty four hours and thereafter the officer craft all of this questions regarding that detention by first typing during the twenty four hours you know what examination that he does twenty four hour period in general terms he did not mean that he was watching the  this november two thousand and one incident that seems to most serious one took me through to completely eliminate discretion of third one which was really quite as i understand   when he was asked by the asylum officer somewhere in the beginning of the interview following the discussion about who's at the top or ninety nine arrested anything else happen and he answered no but when he was asked the question why did you leave he himself began to offer well in june of two thousand and one this incident occurred and he gave details and he then was asked where did you live during certain periods of time and he says that he was in one village between june and he says that he lived with relatives until november two thousand and one and i think the natural  and i'm referring to the record at page one fifteen so i think it's clear from the way the petitioner crn especially during the testimony in court that he was waiting to be asked a particular question and then immediately responded to that some jokes but that didn't mean he didn't take the proceedings seriously and the judge instead penalized him for giving too much information and then when she ordered him to just answer the question don't don't t good morning your honor me please the court my name is andrew mclaughlin i represent the responded the term in general of the united states in this case let me first pause for a moment and observe that the first observation made by my sister counsel regarding the omission from the transcript has been there the entire time it was not raised to the board nor was it raised in her brief to this court so i'm not exactly prepared to respond to an order that was want nor was it responded to in the brief in this case where i'm not i'm not sure what you there's obviously something missing here because it jumps into something else immediately after that so the transcriber right on the face of the transcript that counsel had in preparing her brief for the board and in preparing a brief for the court contains that notation but the first time it strikes me that nineteen hours versus twenty four hours is not a material difference and that he also explained that he said he stayed overnight so i don't quite get the government's position that that would be a basis for an adverse credibility determination you're out of the government's position is that in the context of the record of this case and the test that you were required to apply in this case is whether or not the record as a whole compels the conclusion that this person was testifying credibly that the claim was credible so you have to look at the entire record in the entire situation and this i g did a great job of outlining all of the reasons that were on her mind when she was making this determination the special reason as their child is observed the central reason was the omission of the november two thousand and one incident but the rest of it added up to something and it's it it's not like it's nothing on the record and many of those things that mean that is a central incident so the question of whether or not he was test whether or not he had testify consistently regarding such a central instance that it is worthy of discussion and if the i g is caused t pause by that it's a factor that needs to be added into that calculus and we talked for a moment about the november two thousand and one incident if you go through your the litany of reasons why this court has found things not to be sufficient to permit an adverse credibility determination none of those are present in the situation you have a situation where there's no question that what's there is inconsistent there is no mention whatsoever of a beating that took place in november of two thousand and one and i don't think there's any dispute that there is no such mention so we have inconsistency is it central to the claim was he ever asked what were the servants and what you were beat he was asked that question and then he was asked why did you come to the united states why did you leave georgia this is the incident the singles central most important incident that caused him to leave georgia and come to the united states and yet it wasn't mentioned in response to either of those questions and when the immigration judge now something's not in the asylum application but is in the testimony that that type of limitation but if something's in the application and then other things are stuck in the testimony but not an item that's in the application my question is do you have any case which is parallel to that i believe there are such a system i'm certain that there are such cases i don't recall off the top of my head which  are i can provide those in a supplemental authorities afterwards if you prefer i didn't notice anything in your briefs on that why specifically i don't recall there being anything addressing said when they go when he got to the end of his description at one point he said well ok was there any other time you were harmed and mr pollock sighed he said no so the interviewers stops and thinks ok well i guess i can move on now because you've just told me that you're  application isn't true on that point so then he says ok why did you come to the united states now keep in mind at this point mr policy had not mentioned being beaten in june of two thousand and one or being beaten in november of two thousand and one so in response to the question why did you come to the united states all of a sudden mr ball i cited remembers that he was beaten in june of two thousand and one and describes the june two thousand and one incident but he never mentions november two thousand and one even though this is an incident that caused him to come to the united states he was shot had he feared for his life and then in the media in the in the notes in the media page following i think that's page one fifty in the record he was he was asked to more general questions he said is there anything else relevant that you want to tell me about is there anything else i need to know he asked those two questions at the end and mr boies said he said no in both of circumstances having described the june incident didn't follow up with i went into hiding didn't follow up that i was in bed for a month didn't follow up with when i came back i was beaten up again i was harmed in that occasion somebody shot at me i feared for my life that's why i left the united states none of that appears in the statement of the asylum interview so what does that leave you that leaves you with an inconsistent statement that central to the claim that clearly about so what we have is in the mission in the asylum interview i would say it's more than that he was specifically asked the question were you harmed in any other way and said no he was specifically asked if there's anything else you want to tell me and said no is there anything else relevant to this claim and said no those are inconsistent statements when he is now saying that there is something else and that there was something else at the time that he should have said yes it's an omission but the fact that he's denying that those things existed at the time under oath in the language that he's most familiar with is telling and it's in has a basis that supports the immigration judge's decision and that's the only question could be reasonable fact finder look at that and say that's pretty significant that causes me to pause that causes me to think that i can't believe i don't know what to believe about your testimony your testimony is not worthy of credit your claim is not worthy of credit it is not credible and therefore you have failed to testify as you're required to do let's look at the explanations that were in fact given his response was i forgot not only did he forget the event that caused him to come to the united states in november two thousand and one he had forgotten the june event as well the concept of this all of the all of the possible reasons for which you could have to explain your asylum application why you didn't do something all the caller's able to tell the immigration officer was i forgot all he was always able to tell you is well that question wasn't precisely asked and i was trying to be precise in my all of those rationales that are available to you out there don't apply in this case in this case in the context of a proceeding in which the alien was being evasive not answering questions the questions that he didn't answer were seem to be trying to give the answer that somebody wanted regardless of truth all of those things is what the immigration judge was observing and in that context centered around the central of at that he failed to mention his involvement with the georgian party any field to mention this november of that not to mention failing to all together in sake he is incredible what about the example about the special prosecutor versus whether he was called forth between before the investigator working for the prosecutor's office he explained this difference that he had never said to the asylum officer that the actual prosecutor general spoke with him and from the notes you cannot glean whether he was asked who from that office spoke with you or whether the asylum officer really delved into that area too much and during the testimony he explained it wasn't the actual prosecutor john was an investigator from there and yet the judge use that as a basis to find him incredible there's nothing in the record to support it there are lots of