a true testimonial inconsistency in response to a question about which airport he had used to depart pakistan mr mallock said well i'm sorry lahore some page for ninety nine of the record other than that one first like to say who cares i mean even if there were a discrepancy with regard to the number of days that mr mallock was interviewed by it's irrelevant it would be a trivial discrepancy it certainly doesn't go to the heart of his claim and under the law this circuit it would not be relevant to the credibility determination council when i went through the credibility determination here's the way it looked to me and i want you to educate me if you didn't look like it was just inconsistencies of the airport it looked as though the passport to the smuggler had his passport for several days but he suggested during the course of this testimony that perhaps the smuggler had substituted certain pages of his passport in order to make it appear as if he had not overstayed in it makes sense then the smugglers would have attempted to eliminate the evidence that he had overstayed his visa in dubai by substituting certain pages of his transfer of his passport and that's exactly what he suggested they had done now the issue about the country profile your honor i think this one is a cut example of the judge relying on inconsistency is that simply don't exist exist the immigration judge focused on a country profile a certain passage in the country profile that relates to the period of high g i rule that's what it says the period of prior to that prior to the i g i coming into power was somehow inconsistent with this report about country conditions that prevailed after his departure and as we pointed out in our brief even if that i g i the passage regarding the conditions under i i rule were relevant it actually supports his his contention that he was arrested and beaten it sounds quite clearly quote there were quite credible reports of the denial of due process for mistreatment by police of p p p activ board of immigration appeals simply affirmed an issue of credibility it didn't reach whether or not he had been a victim of past persecution or well founded fear because the interest is testimony entirely incredible so if the court disagrees with that negative credibility finding it would have to remain on this case of the board and at that point the board would take a second look and determine whether or not that credible testimony establishes that in fact he suffered persecution on account of protection ground can't put you thought my question by saying you wanted to talk more about  pakistan on august thirteenth one thousand nine hundred s to week after the p p p government that controlled the federal government was dissolved he clearly at that point wasn't ready to make a complete break with this country he didn't see it as something someplace like the united states or europe he went to iran nearby so that he could continue to maintain contact with his family while he was in iran for two and a half months he made two to three visits to visit his family you got to remember i want to do that if you scared to go to pakistan but i want to go to pakistan to be secure to go there because your honor at the come home i really have to see my old buddies and stuff see the family and she'd say come home it's too dangerous don't come home up with your father on he'll tell you don't come home and the kid get the message don't come home yet your honor maybe you are  are a stronger person than most of us most of us aren't that strong i mean even if we are afraid we kill things we have a desire to see our family he just had celebrated his birthday all by himself in iran his sister was getting married he wanted to come and see a sister get married he whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole such that the cia could legitimately reach the conclusion that it did why can't the be decided on the basis of could find that to be inherently implausible now if he'd given inconsistent testimony on that point that would be one thing but he didn't he was perfectly consistent and issue is is it inherently implausible that somebody who who had been arrested and beaten had see if i can go don't bother reading around what i thought you would just know and the computer error had to do with a date and taken some confusion about when president d l was assassinated and questioning him about his day in iran he said well i wasn't actually in iran and i was coming back and forth coming to the north part of pakistan and then going back to iran and that's on page twenty of them in  impossibility he explained that he did not respond to a subpoena for his testimony as a witness to one of his uncle's murders but nevertheless he said he and his family have been writing letters to the police asking them to investigate the murders looking at was the country conditions at the time of the immigration judge's decision and those indicated that p p members p p p members were not being persecuted they had found since the one nine hundred ninety seven election that that there had been immigration judges holding for example he didn't provide any evidence that he was a member of the p p p or he actually didn't claim to be a member of the p p p itself he was a member of a student wing of that party he never provided any  evidence of that and he has as your honest pointed out earlier his attempts to obtain other cross breeding evidence were were very weak or not exist and he didn't claim to have had newspaper articles and investigative reports at one claim as to the time he spent in jail by and his concerns about the passport and so forth the council just gave us a long story about how he only had a visa for twenty five days and ju did not provide a credible explanation for why the stamps on his passport didn't match the story he merely just said i don't know i gave my passport to the agent and then it was given back to me and i don't know how i got all these yes and just to sort of i'm not going to go into pakistan history but the p p p has been in and out of power sort of a two or three year intervals and they did it when they're not in power they've been one of the principal opposition part