first her testimony was vague as to her relationship with her husband for example she was unable to testify as to his birth date she was unable to testify as to the date of their wedding  repeatedly stated that she had no understanding of his work other than the fact that he was a journalist in chechnya she didn't know if he was reporting in favor of the russian government whether she was reporting in favor of the muslim separatists  relevant to her claim as to whether or not she would be persecuted on account of his work well her knowledge of what he did if you was out there as a reporter who was doing things that were found to be should have known and the i j a presume she should have known why wouldn't her attackers presume that she should have known even if she didn't the problem is not just that she did not she didn't provide a convincing explanation as to why she never inquired as to what her husband did and given her other inconsistency and missions the immigration judge is not compelled to accept her testimony for example in her asylum application she claims that she was hundred ninety one in her testimony there's no mention of any harm and tell her husband dies come back just go back to your last point about the getting in the street as cite on that i don't have the last time i had you maybe correct your honor but i would point out though that again her testimony is inconsistent and vague throughout she had the opportunity in her direct examination to present every piece of evidence that she had if she had been beaten on the street she said she could have mentioned this just fine that her testimony is was found to be not credible because it was disjointed is simply not the case she had an opportunity to present her claim and in the street and she later didn't mention that but she talked of being beaten in her apartment now one could this question is she in the first statement that she gave that she was in the actual street or did she mean outside in the street outside her house the second reading list saying being there just the location changed those would be the kinds of things one might want to consider was that ever immigration judge not compel to accept that explanation that the the biological father can be changed to a non biological father especially in light of the question of her testimony which is simply not convincing given that to her second husband who was killed on account of his work as a journalist and then she was subsequently harmed because of that the birth certificate calls into question her the fundamental marital relationship with  with her testimony and her evidence do that because she has his us no basis to understand why her husband die she gives us no basis as to why she was crying other than that they were harmed her because of him they delivered the review the record as a whole and determine whether or not the evidence compels reversal and it simply does not do so in this case that's conclusory counsel you know i think i accept that burden the question of the reason we're asking these on and say well why would you do that or anything else you say well she doesn't isn't bound by the answer well so that means that the i j a can just simply disbelieve all the explanations about russian procedures we get lots of cases of about foreign countries procedures that are a lot different from the sutures in the u s and there's some government evidence to indicate questions about for example china or  you know the middle east where the records are issue differently here's a perfectly valid answer on its face there's nothing inherently incredible about it if in russia they allow in effect of not having to go through an adoption they allow the current father who is raising the child to be listed on a birth certificate it's a little hard to say well the answer to that is that the i j a didn't have did not know wait a minute she'd wait a minute where did she have any advance notice before she got on the stand that the i j a was going to not buy the explanation of what is common practice in russia has to be  very troublesome answer because what you're saying is that the petitioner who comes in with the documentation which isn't challenge before trial is now giving the explanation to a direct question and you're saying well too bad she didn't anticipate the way the factual predicate in the documentation even civil trials in this country people are given the opportunity on documentation to be challenged before trial so that they can know that they have to lay a foundation well it is for burns to establish this ci if this was a concern she could have requested to continue to specifically support this when would she have known that she a say i don't find that explanation credible right then and there so she could say ok well then if you're not satisfied with my answer i want to continue with so i can go out and  another had the opportunity to be direct and could have attempted to bolster her why counsel why why would i go on redirect when she gave the answer she said in our country it doesn't matter if i decide i want him to be the father the birth certificate you can after he turns sixteen year old years old question and that document was issued in january two thousand is that right yes ok trying to understand that when you get it i think the answer to a question that the judges pose and those of the judge doesn't evidence any trouble with the answer to say well now as a protective matter i'm going to ask for leave to continue these hearings i'm going to now go out and try to establish russian law on this even though it hasn't been challenged by the government is that the essence