daughter's kidnapping matter of respond it was already in the united states she was informed that her daughter was kidnapped by the political party she was having problems with by the tensioners husband  she was already in the united states she wasn't there to witness it she was hearing about it secondhand and there was some vagueness and petitioner's testimony as to what exactly transpired now during the testimony the judge never really got into why she was there on this point it could have been that her husband was trying to protect her and that given the full story on the kidnapping my point and this is what document did the judge or the board want to produce there's no specific reference to which document the board wanted in this case there's no evidence that the police were involved so i don't think the police document was  i'm going to write a letter so that's not available a letter from from the relatives usually doesn't carry a lot of weight in immigration court and a recent case i cited in my twenty eight available to satisfy the board on this issue of response daughter's kidnapping in another argument cite arguments or the same issue even if one of persecution looks like it shown and then it would be remanded on the issue for the judge to exercise the discretion or the board and also to give the government an opportunity to rebut the presumption of future persecution counsel testimony it's your position that it's too much to expect for her to be accurate on that when respondent was confronted with the medical documents which show that the incident occurred january two that gives rise to the persecution claim then i think it's different than when you have a discrepancy about who was born fleeing are something to that that right now would be materiality whether it's material to the cylon claim i i think support the others credibility i say have two minutes left i like to  my name is jennifer my caddie and i represent the respondent the attorney general the petitioner was appointed no evidence in the record compelling the conclusion that she's credible it's just her finding the farnum asylum application and appeared before an asylum officer and gave her story and the asylum officer didn't believe or she had if you will a dress rehearsal an opportunity to present her case and she still couldn't get it right she hadn't consistencies which were the basis of the immigration judges i don't i just don't read the record that way the medical documents say january two thousand the original asylum application so january two thousand and when the when she was confronted with the discrepancy of the here and she just said you know i'm confused i can't remember everything so she did miss state the date there's no question about it i guess i'm having some difficulty january of two thousand and medical records corroborate that they're all consistent and she testifies it's october ninety nine and when that is called to her attention she says i'm sorry i was confused it's still january two thousand so why is that sequence of events fatal to her claim well first of all i don't think i disagree with what petitioners counsels that she didn't correct herself and say oh i must have been wrong was january and you know you are confused i can't remember everything right she can't remember everything and his next and well to answer your question this is the heart of her plane everything that happened subsequently to this was based on what transpired during this particular rally and she testified that it occurred in one nine hundred ninety nine to get a hundred completely contradicted the evidence that she said that she and this wasn't the first time that she was telling her story as i've mentioned before she told th asylum officer who didn't leave or she still couldn't get her story straight and i was absolutely straight to the central aspect which was what happened at the rally that not when it critical lately and she ended that returning to what she had originally said that she got confused in the middle of the hearing and said another day well the disagree i mean i mean all of it together not only what exactly happened to her whether she was beaten unconsciously all of that the the the timing of it what exactly happened to all those is is critical and critical the date is critical because because she's in a documentary evidence which contradicted what she said so it became critical if she may be and i'm not suggesting that this would actually be the case that maybe if she had submitted to cooperate in evidence then she might have been in a different situation but one hundred fifty one of her first statement have been i'm confused i can't remember everything i'm not sure when the date was but here's what happened what she did find was that her testimony was inconsistent with the actual evidence that she submitted and that was the basis of the adverse credibility finding and it was significant because her testimony w different from what she had submitted and what she had stated previously in her in her written out flirtation and in her documentary evidence the she and she made an issue and and in addition to that the immigration judge found that she was inconsistent about her testimony with respect to her position as an count with this organization and when he confronted her with that it didn't seem plausible that someone without a formal education w of the books in this particular case and for this organization then she she you know the immigration judge didn't rely on any speculation or conjecture what he said is that her testimony actually changed then i said well i mean i was just entering what they told me to enter and she had previously said she found some inconsistency in the in the bookkeeping and then she said well that her relatives told her about some inconsistency so her testimony changes and that's  support the adverse credibility finding but the petitioner hasn't shown that the record evidence compels a contrary conclusion which is his burden for this court what he says is it doesn't go to the heart of his claim well if the date right and regardless of what counsel says or our views he still has to point to a record that compels a contrary conclusion and he hasn't done that and she didn't correct the record and say oh it did occur in january of two thousand she just said i'm confused i can't remember everything but again she had this wasn't the first time that she appeared before either an asylum officer or an immigration judge to give her story and she couldn't get produced a bright i think she says she still could have produced an affidavit from her husband certainly if the child had been kid and i want to say for just for the record that it wasn't really clear for daughter was actually kidnapped and i when i read the record there were some statements from her husband but it wasn't particularly clear which is illustrates the reason why the cooperate in evidence because we don't know what happened was the daughter actually kidnapped i don't know it's not clear from the records but to answer your question  statement from the husband or the daughter saying she was kidnapped a ransom note a police report maybe a hospital records i don't know that she didn't come forth and say you know i don't have anything you know here's the reason why i can't produce i'm review whether the record evidence compiles a conclusion that that was unavailable and again that goes to the second argument that i was making that he hasn't shown that there were that it was that there  question why should it have cooperated document even taking this incident out of the case respond still has a viable claim for political asylum based upon the beatings she herself suffered based upon her political opinion so i believe that this is also as far as the real idea i goes on this issue i believe there's a due process concern that respondent is now has a lot of white retroactively in time of the legal standard that she was not aware of at the time she presented her case and i believe that would be a due process problem as well as far as the i believe the evidence does compel that this court overturned the credibility finding because there's no evidence in the record to support the credibility finding except for perhaps the date discrepancy which petitioner is not arguing that it's not material it is material to a case where petitioner is arguing is that by itself this one confusion as the date is not enough to support an adverse