requires and he did not fell under any exceptions to the rules the second reason the judge found his test testimony to be not credible i want to start with the credibility and then i'm going to circle back to the one year old so judge identified eight reasons for the negative credibility findings however and when the case was appealed to the board of immigration appeals that point board cited not all the reason so board did not pay attention to all the reasons because most of the reasons on speculation only now down to five a right right and even those agency actually admitted that mr berger sarin was not given an opportunity to explain however they characterize it that that was an inconsistency testified consistently that he joined the party in ninety nine he did testify that the party was established in ninety eight however at one point when he was asked what what year you joined  whether he actually filed the complaint or he went and tried to file the complaint his testimony his testimony said he went to the police to file a complaint they said no will go to the prosecutor's office he went to the prosecutor's office he was a sitting in waiting and then national presentation of his own evidence he's certainly capable of telling the story true tends to be consistent doesn't it absolutely however he's not in control of his testimony he's asked the questions so he only with respect to the two issues the judge rather not an issue about was the trickery in the questions yes there were some leading questions that he after answering several times if he couldn't remember the number of rallies for example he said armenia because of his support for an anti opposition group to the government of robber contrarians and so he is stating that because he was a leader in this party and he organized these rallies he came to attention of the authorities and they persecute them so it's important critical to his cla period of two thousand to two thousand and one but after april two thousand and one i did not participate in any rallies but there were rallies taking place he wasn't necessarily participating in them that doesn't seem unreasonable acts as an explanation s where they ask him well how many rallies did you organize in two thousand two thousand and one said many many rallies they want to narrow that down does that mean one in two thousand and one in two thousand and one he said no ten to fifteen in each year so ok in two thousand and one how many  organize that years of ten fifteen what months if you organize them in he said from january two thousand and one into the end of summer and then more over till september two thousand and one when i left for the united states and then later  well how could you be organizing these rallies that period of time because he stated after the march twenty eighth two thousand and one tension you no longer participate in rallies out of fear for your life and he said well i never said that before that was the explanation was like  did do the rallies he did a number of rallies you don't challenge that the exact times and the exact numbers do not really go to the heart of this kind i think with immigration judges faced with this kind of testimony you know  really wasn't organized wellies he really wasn't put dissipating and there doesn't seem to be much doubt about that and that's the testimony shows that he wasn't participating at was back when he said he was because it was only after he is caught later on saying i was so scared for my he didn't explain everything that happened to him he explained the major things in the short paragraph when he testified over one hundred pages he said a lot more about what happened to him that's not bringing it well he never mentioned any arrests and these are all arrested said came on account of his political act yes he didn't mention them when is that the day i see you don't understand that an affidavit is not the same as one hundred pages of testimony and you don't arrested more than one time but when he told his main story in a paragraph in this affidavit he didn't list everything that happened to him why is that bringing something suddenly i think when you know the fact finder it's reasonable that you would have written down rested three times are because you're going to think you've read our cases in which we've said we don't expect people to put everything in the affidavit and that we should not put much emphasis on the fact that the affidavit doesn't tell the entire story we've said that affidavit and he discussed the main episode that caused him to be frightened he didn't include everything that happened to that point that he was one of your strongest points for finding this witness incredible i think that is one of the strongest points he admitted these three arrests where he claimed it's time is because he was out there to spring these rallies which i tell the question of context to it his affidavit said you know i was politically active and during my participation i was arrested a total of three times and then it turns out at the time of his testimony it's like oh instead of three times i was actually arrested for ten times i think you have a better argument it's just the way that the affidavit was written in context he was talking about an incident that happened that then led up to a number so i think in that instance talking about how the activity led up to the detention and arrest and in a separate room is different than saying that i was arrested only once and then as it turned out it was a total of three times right now would you agree with that i mean actually the latter is the standard of reviewing whether result minds could differ over whether or not that should be included in affidavit that's context matter what happened he said they slapped me and then the government attorney said did you think to include that in your affidavit and he said i didn't think it was important so he did not think it was important to include that they slapped him not that he did not think it was