citizen of our main yeah who apply for asylum withholding of removal and relief under the convention against torture his application was denied by the immigration judge in may two thousand and three he appealed to the board of immigration appeals and the board of immigration appeals affirmed without opinion the decision of the electorate gratian judge your honour's the reason we're here today relates to to due process  issues the first is related to the integrity of the hearing in may two thousand and three at the immigration court the record reveals that that hearing was riddled with interpreter problem translated portions of the transcript as well as interference directly with the interpreter by the immigration judge this is especially problematic since the immigration judge grounded her decision solely on an adverse credibility finding against petitioner in deciding he did not meet the definition of a refugee under the immigration nationality act this court's jurisprudence has considered similar cases where interpreter error or interference with an interpreter have amounted to a due process violation in that they have denied petitioners a full and fair hearing on the merits the immigration judge's decision relies on heavily on the cross examination portion of the hearing and this was part of the hearing that was especially riddled with  and translated statements by the petitioner as well as the immigration judge going off the record and telling the interpreter at one point don't go so far after the petitioner had responded to a particular question the cases that this court has decided which touched on similar issues include bovey and versus ashcroft as well as hay versus ashcroft and the reason why this interpreter why an incomplete transcript or why interpreter difficulty is so problematic is that we don't have a complete record to determine whether  credibility terminations was supported by substantial evidence since the immigration judge in this case gave no alternative reason why petitioner did not meet the definition of a refugee under the act we are to some degree only left to guess at her transcript further never replied again but a motion trooping was filed with the board alleging ineffective assistance of former counsel the board did address their concerns but found that decision was that the prejudice was not clear to petitioner based on the record with respect to the translation there in that transcript it has untranslated what does that mea i believe your honor it means that petitioner said something and the interpreter did not interpret for whatever reason so that was apparent at the time i can understand some of these cases where you don't have a transcript until later and you don't and  the translator comes out couldn't hear the couldn't understand the translation or something but but this seems that it wasn't all translated so i'm not sure why former counsel didn't raise  issue it was apparent to me once i started preparing the first opening bring it thank you so i guess you know that in petitioners argument is that the prejudice quickly you're saying that something happened as a result of the difficulties with the interpreters was interpreted how do we know that how do you do a mystery prejudiced in this case well by former counsel believed he was stating certain things western you start off with how can i do it the real question is do i have to do it and then you get to the second if you have a burden to do it then you have to demonstrate you've done it and what you're saying if i understand it because of these glitches that don't tell us anything the seven specific cogent region reasons that the i g gave for not believing your client somehow get washed away is arguing the specific cogent reasons that she gave some of those related to discrepancies between the asylum application and his testimony at the asylum interview in the hearing i understood he gave an explanation for that she also didn't address why that wasn't sufficient or why that wasn't credible i had him sort of but in order to show that there was no evidence you're saying that you're saying that there that what wasn't in the record is what you're going to rely on to illustrated there's a problem in the briefing we can't say exactly what was missed or what he might have thought he told the immigration judge that in the alternate yes we have we have burdens of proof person miss is their burden of proof they lose it's just true we go by now why would it be different here you have the burden of proving the difficulty the prejudice you hasn't been done and you say well i can't do it so therefore i don't have to well if the integrity of the proceedings if we don't have a complete record then how how can we really attacks well if it were true then we would have cases that say that and any time that there's there are some problems in the translation reopen with regards to the denial of the asylum claim the board properly found that petitioner was not credible this court may only overturn that determination in light if the record compels the conclusion that petitioner is credible then finally to his immigration judge hearing where he mentioned four events additionally his explanations for that his failure to mention these previous incidents they themselves were inconsistent as such record cannot thousand where the police detained him and beat him on the third day he also mentions the previous two events but now he claims definitively he was fired because of his religion and second and the other incident where as he claimed his boss the i'm a ninety eight now is hand was broken and additionally the police refused to do anything about it when i saw them officer said why didn't you mention this before he said i'm  well i think we've reviewed the we've reviewed the briefs and i think that we understand your position on the merits i speaking just for myself i would i would appreciate your edge of arresting these problems in  translation i know that the the the i j s are working under a lot of handicaps but this is not very good for the system to have these kinds of errors repeatedly coming up in  records that we are called upon to review and i think firstly the average credibility the fact that it is not actually based on the testimony of petitioner before the immigration judge is first relevant to the finding no prejudice and i understand i understand what your position is was i was asking you as it is about my concern that here we have these what appear to be obvious problems during the course of hearing with the with with the translations and yet i could not see that the i j a was concerned about it or i'm just tapes but this appears to be something that wasn't translated but again most of those and translated appear to be a dialogue between petitioner and the translator or where the immigration judge just saying that this is the first time that you've seen this and translated we're getting in the past once or twice i have definitively seen where there is something that appears that from the tape the transcriber could not  i'd like to briefly address that the board found that petition was not diligent first it's somewhat contradictory to claim as petitioner does that it was apparent at the time it was it was clear the record were it was clear that there were errors sent a letter to former counsel three days after that petitioner files a brief with this court arguing an exhausted and in an exhausted argument that petitioner suffered ineffective  then four months after that files a motion reopen with the board clearly at the time the brief was filed with this court petitioner clearly clearly wanted to make a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel but petitioner did dialogue that isn't translated between a petitioner and target or i don't think there's any argument that there should be dialogue you know another language that's not translated for the record otherwise we don't really have a record and we don't know  can't i can't but i can't but the credibility determination is based on the petitioners overall credibility not just specific facts that are in the record it's standard in her decision at page sixty seven of the most recent record she said and adverse credibility finding must be supported at least by one specific coach and region in fact this court's decision in heart to me versus i and i says that i j must have a legitimate she show what was the lemonade in they lack of grass playing that would have made a difference i'm not sure if it was one specific thing or explanation which could have possibly convinced the immigration judge that the overall story was credible that his demeanor and his explanation of how these things fit together and why the application didn't match testimony was credible and fit together and that it made