for the petitioner petitioners asylum appeal really concerns two things first an unreliable credible fear interview or c f i summary and second unreasonable demands for corroborating evidence by the  with respect to those petitioner makes three independent claims warranting reversal in the land first the board issued an unreasoned opinion by relying on the unreliable c f i summary second assume even assuming for the sake of argument the board's adverse credibility finding was based on substantial evidence the board made unreasonable demands for corroborating evidence and third with the c s i summary given proper weight the evidence compels finding petitioner credible unreliable yet to the contrary there are numerous and obvious indications of unreliability just as one example the asylum officer asked petitioner quote what the weather was like and the quote and the reported answer was quote we were at the house and he knocked at the door and he was furious and quote there's no follow up no explanation as to what that exchange was supposed to cover board's conclusory statement that there were no such indications of unreliability makes it eviden now looking here looking here at moab a reasoned analysis would show all of the marked the pertinent markers of unreliability are present first we're dealing with a summary which is inherently unreliable understand that under the and this is is this get into a translation problem yes it's evident from the summary here that there was some sort of interpretive or translation problem where what we have is are our centrally the song officers notes so than he was taking notes through the interpreter and it's laid out as a q and a but that can be misleading to suggest that this is a verbatim transcript when in fact all we get highlighted are whatever notes that the asylum officer ended up and was released out of custody shortly thereafter notwithstanding corroborating evidence that was submitted including a medical report evidencing that missed him as was in fact raped a forensic psychologist report a police police right there there was there was one of the purported consistency that was highlighted by by the board was a timing issue over whether the the christmas eve incident happened before or after a family party that  is in fact and you can see an inconsistency based on the police report alone but it's a piece of chronology and the fact is she has corroborated with a police report a doctor's report and a psychologist report  applications with credible testimony and when having testified incredibly she failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence to support her applications  board emphasized in his report relied on three specific instances of inconsistent testimony to support the desire to affirm the immigration judges credibility finding the first is dealing with the  incident on december twenty fourth two thousand and seven the petitioner in her credible fear interview indicated that she was taking her son to a party at the family of his father who is not the person she fears she married to him she was married to mr marty and then she divorced him i tried but the father of the children was going out to take a little to the party and he stopped or and started to hit her in the two days later she reported the attack which to the police when she reported the attack she said as i prepared to leave my house and take my son to visit the family of his father and sentence later mr romona open proceeded to block my exit so clearly in the reports of the police and in the credible fear interview she indicated that the incident occurred before she left the house however when she was testifying in immigration court she said he did not block me or anything he told me not to go the violence happened after i came back from the party so that was an inconsistent statement which in consistent about that you can senator when she was leaving the did beat the party well actually what they're going to have to make one of those poor after i'm sorry your honor what difference does it make whether the meeting attack or rape took place before or after that particular event well this is an inconsistent statement your honor and it doesn't have i understand that but that the brain thinking is whether or not you would need them right that is the question is whether or not she's a lesions that occurred within twenty or thirty days of the examination which occurred on the twenty sixth of december because of questions or did you find anything else in that record other than the fact that she was raped for him according to medical there is nothing else indicate there's nothing in the record indicates that she was not raped at some point there you go ok that was simply the first inconsistency that the board noted the second inconsistency  holcombe found the petitioner after she had moved out of the house at that time she made the statement that mr o'quinn did not hit her he took my child and quote and hit them and then and that interviewer asked what did kill the old do the answer was he didn't do anything at this point he is the one who had collegial there is no confusion it down point then the petitioner is referring to mr holcombe as being the individual who hit her son  she claimed it was a misinterpretation and provided no further explanation and then the final inconsistency that the board relied upon was the question of when was the last encounter between mr minister right and mr holt when in the interview with miss frere was asked about the times that she had been forced to have relations with mr o'quinn and she was asked how that happened she described that and then she was asked the question simply where did it happen and her statement was the last time was in my own home in my bedroom and she asked was asked what was the date and she said january of two thousand  was later asked to see ramon again after that date she said i had not seen him i only heard from him over the phone and when he would send me letters that's question is on pages seven ninety three and seven ninety four the record as the last time she saw what was due to that data that your honor it is either april or may of two thousand and nine or april or may of two thousand and ten but the date is not strictly relevant mrs ho and said it was two thousand and nine which relevant because there were two last times that is the question around of the two last times and two very distinct incidents and while both are very traumatic the details are very different and couldn't be part of it happened twice she dismissed labeled them as the in the last your honor that it is possible but she volunteered the last time she was raped was in the apartment and then when she was in immigration court she testified that the incident described it as the rape in the apartment in january two thousand and ten did not happen at the last time she saw mr hope and was in the words reliance on the medical report itself no you're wrong they did not now it's not in the board's decision you find that they never do i find that significant no your honor because that was the first time you've ever hit or according to the transcript and that's that is it's the inconsistency is with the subsequent encounters th ones that suggest that she cannot escape mr o'quinn that are much more important to her case and because they exist they call her case in the question was reviewed by both the immigration judge and the board and it was found to be insufficient to establish your claims it is our position that it was appropriate for the immigration judge to expect corroboration drawn primarily from the c f i summary which which mails at numerous places including the place which the government quoted where the government gave you the excerpt about the son being head and governments contending that the person who was doing the action there was indeed mr holding the abuser well the quote the full quote was quote at that point he is the one who hit cleo all she did she did not hit him and it is the internal contradiction with no with no follow up and then the passage later on it's talking about a threat instead of there being abuse or instead of there being actual actual violence so i mean that under essentially so the christmas eve timing point as we've discussed the timing there is irrelevant she has a car corroborated that that point and the government the board and the i j a made no mention of the doctor's report while at the