although the board agreed with the immigration judges ultimate conclusion in the case to deny relief the board did not expressly adopt the findings nor reasoning of the immigration judge but rather engaged in its own analysis therefore the review in this case is limited to the board's decision to deny this court's allocations to relieve a decision that was based on the lack of additional property of evidence now in reaching th made clear that the what they were doing is simply making a statement that their conclusions coincide with the conclusion of the immigration judge and that is supported by the final sentence see where the court's focus should be in terms of the reasoning employed in the decision to deny a score relief however ultimately whether the board restrict its i'm sorry whether this court restricts its review to the board's decision or whether it expands that review to include the immigration judge's decision i believe that the record does not support the ultimate denial of relief in this case so in terms of the reasons outlined by the board in reaching its conclusion that crowd rating evidence was necessary the board first and foremost made a finding certainly i'd be happy to i believe that any of this credibility finding would not be supported by specific or cogent evidence that would rise to the level of substantial evidence on which to support such an adverse credibility finding  called her father and her father in law referring to two sets of affidavits from each that's incorrect there was only one affidavit from this course father in law and in fact that after that was completely consistent with miss horse testimony the board outline it seems to be regarding the date of this course of second arrest in the initial very brief affidavits that were submitted by her father and the village star paunch they very briefly described miss course testimony her declaration her father in law's declaration we can see that the situation in the context readily explains the apparent discrepancy miss course home else they would be back and sure enough two weeks later they came back following the raid and ultimately detained miss score and her husband now although we're only talking about a two week period it happened to fall on the switch of the calendar gave more detail and outlined the situation were also consistent with that furthermore even if this can be seen as a discrepancy or an inconsistency it is in our view a minor one that pertains to date does not go to the heart of her asylum claim now the board went on to make another glaring factual error parroted by the of the decision of the immigration judge the board said  that miss corps stated that a copy of her birth record was available when in fact that is absolutely not true the court looks at page one seventy three of the administrative record the initial coll that the board and the immigration judge seem to be referring to right there on the page and there is no statement by this court that she did hath a birth record so there is no shown that the high school the miss corps attended by her own testimony started out as b s d high school which was a private high school at the time and later became a government high school and it appears as though in the in through the high school is the private school oh but now it's government recognized but that doesn't change this new frankly i'm not sure if typo but the convention appears to be naming a person by the village that they were from and it appears that what was meant to be said there was hardly understanding of village then and had the papers from that high school but it's not her you are we believe that she was consistent with her testimony as to her identity she provided other documentation including a no evidence as to when that notation was made apparently based on what the judge was assuming which was that the sound officer wrote that down that would be in response to the actual conduct of the interview which would have happened after she lack of credibility she had to augment her testimony with reliable corroborating evidence which she failed to do the standard of review in this case is the immigration judge's decision as augmented by the by the board decision as well central to this case is petitioners identity in fact during the first hearing in this case the immigration judge gave her fair warning that you came in on a fake passport you had your picture on it  it was someone else's passport i suggest you start getting the documents that support your identity two years later at the at the military and she had failed to do that regardless of what petitioner testifies to there was no one reliable  should they have to corroborate her testimony with reliable documents she has not done that and generally in that case especially when her testimony is inconsistent is a paramount importance so we just we just had a case where the claim was that the i think w the immigration cases it would appear that identity your birth certificate is something that is generally put forth not always what i would i would think that it's something that's that's kind of standard in and helping prove one's identity here actually never came up with the person  no your honor a certificate of not availability but the in addition she didn't have anything else that could point to your identity in any reliable fashion her two claims of persecution and what the judge found she was inconsistent w her testimony it was constantly shifting and changing in such a tender that she was sort of you know up the causal connection between her participation at this rally her husband's participation at the rally and eventual persecution that allegedly happened the next day so that is it that is inconsistent in the court can look at her testimony and at her asylum application the second incident of a legit person were actually direct conflict direct burden and from if one looks at the context of her testimony it's clear that a plausible reason is that she's that she's changing her tune to increase her kind of her participation or her husband's participation which would lead to a  kind of another conclusion that's why the police came after did not turn in the brother in law minister olmert saying then she said he went by in another name it at birth there's this confusing testimony as to what his name really was and she presented an article that this gentleman was arrested case when she says that you know the catalyst for the second arrest was the brother in law it doesn't make sense that you know she says his name is one thing and the art in a newspaper article has what apparently could be someone else's name name was with an issue is because she gave different variations of it and allegedly this this a midget sitting was the reason for the second persecution he was a and if he doesn't exist so this person and we don't know who we is then it makes a claim l no idea couldn't i'd hazard to guess but it is a factor that the board discussed in you know when they find her incredible they talked about the evidence she brought forward and in the last ten seconds i'd like to talk about these affidavits that our father in law and father brought in not only were they inconsistent with the testimony when she realized they were inconsistent she had them allegedly sent out more affidavit after than the lion's share of the merits hearing and there's still a consistency isn't there so might think this is an important date because she alleges only really two incidences of persecution and her testimony changed from september to december to january her father says december nine hundred ninety  be moved to the end of the counter which is fine with us so i'd like to take up part winders thing zero three seven one five seven one