on several occasions consistent with language in you persuade her to marry a seventy five year old man however i primary motivation for seeking asylum is because frankly i didn't quite understand the immigration judge's reasoning as to whether she's more reluctant to marry this fellow in botswana or more reluctant to u even though it's not well documented but it is in fact practiced by her family that the state department which has a list of all the countries and whether they are and whether you know this female genital mutilation is is found in those countries listed botswana as one of the countries that doesn't have well the only document they have on the record you and i see two thousand and eleven report we suggested that that five percent it does not is not exclusive just because five percent doesn't mean miss moshe could not be subject to female genital mutilation and that happened back to the kids that was there was previously be subjected to circumcision if her just so that i mean i understand that answer mr can take she could not get away from that other members of that ethnic group who would be in touch with her home village and parents at the end yes yes she's not going to be able to do it you can stay anonymously in some other part of the country absolutely not you know because in fact when she left bush one as she was a very relatively young  as human resource director for a company down here in chicago convention against torture if you look at the evidence that was provided when the record we have a two thousand and eleven us state department report and it states we have the general country reports but we also have the petitioners testimony yet which was credited by the immigration judge so what more is needed but we also credit her testimony the fact that she lived with her family for many years after the incident so the two incidents or in the course of eight months between two thousand and two and two page one fifty three of the record she testified to that city was actually very close to her home village and so she resided in that city from two thousand and five until two thousand and eight so she came to the united states on the april twenty third two thousand and eight so we do credit her testimony we credit her entire testimony the fact that the record does not support the fact that a longer tribe does we know it's very large it's all over the country and if it were the case that it was pervasive in the calander tribe then that we would expect to see that come out and you know the u k border agency report the u s state department report other thing i'll say about the unicef traffic petition or claim it is set up to a five percent chance but i think if you look the graphic it's less than one percent and and it's not saying affirmatively that it doesn't exist there but if it is it would be less than one percent so i would challenge that five percent claim and then if you if you look at page twenty two of our brief we we compared our case or this case to the ag wers case in ag before the petitioner provided background evidence that she was practiced in her specific county where she was from she also provided affidavits or excuse me letters from family and also testimony from a social worker who confirmed that it existed and you compare that to the evidence here you can see there have been evidentiary problem here the evidence that petitioner provided was an article about initiation rites in botswana a letter from her mother her witnesses testimony than her own testimony the immigration judge was justified in giving little proto weight to three of those sources of evidence specifically the article does not reference the coanda ethnic group it all references a different group and doesn't talk about female circumcision the letter from the mother also doesn't reference circumcision of course not but given that the immigration judge believed her believe the family had tried this twice before and was trying to get her to come back under  record and they didn't try she lived with them for many for many years after the attempts like i said now those are tears there's a there's an answer for that right with respect to her father's change in position in this marriage i think if you look at that change happened before ok yeah but it's just that there's just a lack of evidence and that's the government's position you have a credible testimony but you also have to part of her testimony to cut against the objective case in person is more likely not that she would be subjected to a six year term so on the immigration judges decision seemed internally inconsistent to me at page six he says i consider petitioner's testimony to have been credible as to these experiences i have no reason to disbelieve them her testimony was largely consistent on this particular issue and cetera i don't agree that these incidents constitute past persecution at least one of them seem to count past persecution you look at the harm she actually suffered and she didn't suffer be harmed you just don't waste as well the fact is they didn't try very hard i mean if you look at the two instances eight months apart she was able to hide in the village i mean it's just that they didn't try very hard to do it and these reports that are very detailed and i think the board what the board the way the board read what the immigration judge was saying is that we credit her testimony there is this a lack of evidence in the record that it's actually a practice practiced you know by her i think her not not this is not practiced by her family but by correctly doesn't that seem a heck of a lot more relevant to this woman it does your honor but again she lived with them for many years afterwards when you're dealing with distinct traditional practices it's often difficult to obtain physical documentation to support your case like that but if the witness or the applicant is credible and they prove by detail