that she was persecuted by both ethnic extremists in azerbaijan and russia and that peak governments of those three respective countries were either unwilling or unable to protect her from harm or in the alternative themselves participating in harming her for example as the case really boils down to whether we should sustain the credibility finding of the immigration judge immigration judge indicated ten areas of concern any one of which if we're sustainable the credibility is lost it seems to me your case would be lost so if you wouldn't mind could you focus on the areas where the at least three of them sometime during your remarks the medical treatment issue where she testified once she was rejected for medical treatment because of ethnicity but on the other hand that she was one month and fifteen days in the hospital and twenty stitches a thought that was incredible and not believable the second on her husband who said she was a widow then she didn't know where he was then she was able to find him according to the i j a assume his records were  camp they refused term medical treatment because of her ethnicity but she said that in russia she did receive brief amount of treatment however upon discovery of her by the hospital officials she was thrown based upon the record because i don't believe her statements were an attempt to exaggerate her claim or make her claim more enduring to the judge she simply related that she some modification i don't explain why at the time she filed her sound application she did not know her husband's whereabouts she couldn't easily written that she was in russia but i don't have contact with him or she didn't have to write that he she thought he  and it was only later that year and later two thousand that she was able to get information as to his whereabouts by writing to a friend their mutual friend in russia again this is not a factor that enhance testimony should that concern us you're not it's true that it seems like a great contradiction she says that she's a widow suddenly she's not but again this isn't enhanced in her claim she only learned of she cannot do that it's not going on in the opening brief and there's certainly evidence to support the immigration judge's decision i've read some of our cases that haven't quite said the the test what do you rely on fish or fish one but iran having finished my answer to your prior question the two year difference itself is not the issue the issue of whether the rape occurred at all is the issue because there's a difference and gates the immigration judge began to believe that it was made up or set up to be an enhancement of this claim in particular in the application was made can side with the genocide events in azerbaijan which would certainly help to lend greater allegation of rape two years later not quite as likely and therefore she's enhanced ing her claim by moving it up to the genocidal date of january fourteenth one thousand nine hundred that's how it relates to the heart of the cla issue the fact of whether the event occurred at all in light of the alteration of facts the shifting between facts the inconsistency between the allegations that is what goes to the heart of the and did the rape occurred all so i'm certainly goes to the heart of the claim in fact this court is healthy was actually if you read her application and i believe it was page one eighty two of the administrative record you got the application actually saying that page eighty eight of the testimony which claim to have been hospitalized for fifteen days to one month and page one hundred six of these time of the patient where she claims that after being beaten in the camp in armenia she was denied medical treatment before this court she also claims to have been mistreated that all goes to the heart of the asylum claim she was given fifteen to twenty days of medical care in fact she had made it x fifteen thirty days she in fact admitted she didn't have to don't know just told me that she said she had no problem with the translation but now you're telling me that she did testify that she told the person who filled out the application her husband was missing which that individual  killed again there was no evidence that she fixed that allegation before the asylum officer and with all that we then get the testimony regarding how she found me and find out about her husband when she found out about her husband she said  rage on review we would take the content of that question is being accurate truth act oh no your honor the please don't misunderstand me i'm not suggesting that the content of the question itself but that is what was rai if that's what i said that's not what i meant at all the only basis of on which the content of what she told the asylum officer was contained to the question asked by the government council on cross and there were no notes no testimony from the asylum officer nothing to indicate what she had told the asylum officer other than what was inside the four forms of the question asked on cross is that right almost your honor in addition to the testimony that your honor  knew that he was alive but didn't mention it at this time in an interview she clearly stated on the record that she believed she was missing presumed dead and at the beginning of the individual hearing when corrections were being made before testimony began she indicated she knew that he was