convention against torture claims basically the i j a deny the case based upon purported inconsistency is there were five that he cited the first of which is a hospital verification letter quote unquote hospital verification matter provided by the petitioner that states that he was there was written by a doctor that had treated him at his home at all points in testimony to the respondent have testified that he was not allowed to tell anybody about his detention that he was treated soley at his house and that is white who is a nurse and a doctor who treated him now this letter was provided to the court and if this doctor worked at that hospital pardon me do we know if the doctor worked at the hospital the doctor was a friend of the wife the wife of the nurse yes your honor there is some indication in the record that the doctor did work that he was a surgeon at that hospital i believe if there is just not enough information and no foundation to state that the letter on its i do i do understand that the letter says the word hospitalized however he was treated at home it's a form of hospitalization to be at home to be in bed rest to have i d s with you it's not necessarily means that he was at this precise hospital nor does  the corresponding translation it's treating doctor a p m bari and which i would imagine is it ok i'm page five thirty five something that appears to be handwritten on page five thirty five correct judge if you look at the bottom towards the bottom right hand corner on is indicating that it's hospital letterhead prepared by the doctor who was a friend who basically clandestinely treated the petitioner at his home who part of part of the reason is that the i j a is finding that this is not he was treated at home and there's testimony that in armenia people don't want to be in the hospital they would prefer to be treated at home correct and moreover your honor to be the petitioner also testified that he was not allowed to seek medical treatment that was part of that he would have who would have forbidden from seeking medical treatment military officials that beat him specifically told him that he was not to seek medical attention that he was to stay at home and that is what prompted him to not go to the hospital  her friend the doctor correct correct so there is an indication in the record that the petitioner was prevented by the military by the governor man officials that inflicted this harm upon him from about going to be prevented in the sense that he would he felt threatened if you if you went to the hospital she testifies that ordinarily when you have somebody come in like this that that you would that the hospital would notify the police but no actually one step further he was specifically told while he was getting beat that he should not be going to the hospital it was not an assumption on the part of the petition it was actual statement that was made by the individuals that inflicted the harm that he should not be going to the hospital now the petitioner the petitioner did submit that letter and i do understand that it is an ambiguity at worst but i don't believe that it is an inconsistency and sense it is not an inconsistency it's an ambiguity at worst i don't believe it has substantial evidence moving on to some of the other points raised by the i j a the i j a family account of the journalist incoherent i don't believe that this is either based on the record i believe this is based more on the i g is misinterpretation of the testimony of the petitioner testified hike that is that the plant the nuclear plant that he was working at had closed down because of some problems and after it opened it gained some attention based upon the fact that people were worried especially after sharon noble and that some journalists were coming in to basically investigate and write some reports he clearly tried to state in his testimony that it  explanation a technical explanation of what is transpiring with the journalists interview and the i j a basically prevented him from doing that at that point said no just kind of keep it simple and at that point it was difficult for the petitioner just because you provide the provide the story that the journalist then there's evidence on the record that basically he was never shown the story that was published he was only told by the military officials what was published and we're not even sure whether the petitioner knew what the military officials were saying were accurate the bottom line is that the military he expected one thing which was truthful that there were some problems with the plant that they had been rectified the the journalists basically hyperbolas to the statements to make it seem as if out of the journalist apparently was foreign and he was speaking russian so maybe the petitioner was not entitle to see that publication since it might have come out in another country but again we haven't he hasn't we haven't made any effort to try and find that story since he came to the united states whether an effort has been eight fifty three and four fifty five of the record also i think it is clear in this case that we do know what hospitalized means and i would direct the court to pages one thirty one thirty thirty two of the record at that point the petition the immigration judge confronted him and said well you said you're hospitalized in your declaration do we all know what hospitalized means here and the petitioner said yes isn't that consistent with him saying that the translation treated at home well your honor previously he said that he would treat it he was treated the university of radiology and my point is that it's clear he knows that hospitalization is not treated at home that i'm right and he says that and that's why employment record actually says that he really resigned and i believe that his testimony was that he simply asked for sick leave and then later decided that he would not go back i think that if he had if he was hospitalized as a result of the treatment he received by the by the military i think that shows persecution so that's why he would want to show that he was how did this testimony a search warrant i pointed out few minutes ago the counsel kind of articulated yes so what what good does that what it confirms that he was that the doctor provided treatment is kind of from the doctor provider but how how does the fact that it says that he was hospitalized how does that enhance his claim at all well i believe as i said that if he was hospitalized i think that shows the severity of the beating as for whether or not his wife's testimony corroborates his testimony the government home actually she waffled back and forth on that issue three or four times during her testimony some time saying that he could not speak and we had to gesture or he could only gesture that he couldn't go to the hospital and sometimes saying that he told her the very same day that he returned from the beating what had happened to him so the wife's testimony is not reliable and i think the immigration judge specifically stated that so her testimony about him being treated at home does not corroborate his test did the guy jury find her not credible d also point out that petitioners repeat they were twice given the opportunity to to correct this problem the discrepancy that the immigration judge confronted the lead petitioner with the discrepancy in the first hearing the first merits hearing and then there was the case was continued in that continuance no effort was made to get a new translation of the document even before the board and i would direct the cause of the hearing didn't the government's counsel and the same number of lines not appear in the translation so the government council is simply raising concerns about what appeared to be disparity now the government is no more certified translator they and the aliens themselves and so i think the immigration judge correctly overruled that objection may have taken it into account in weighing the document did not say but i think it was appropriate for the immigration together me from yesterday and today we've got more tomorrow i'm not sure i have my facts down exactly correctly but isn't this the case where the outset of the hearings the counsel for the petitioners the house so that she has had a chance to adequately interview her her clients because she hasn't can really understand what the wife was saying in order to make a determination that she lacked credibility we are as far as i know the there were no actions to the record or to the preparation of the transcript  know i'm not sure if i can address the court's concern at this point but all i can say is that it hasn't been raised that issue hasn't been raised before if i may in my last few moments i would just like to say that regarding the studies highly claim the sun yes they were gone but the reason that the son was taken in by the military was strictly to get the parents to come back to armenia that was the only reason they were going after the son the they were trying to force the parents to return and so the son's cla response to your honor the question was whether or not the son is can can be considered incredible if the parents are incredible and i believe that that does follow if the court rejects the parents claim that petitioners credible incredible after hearing all three testify in court so i think it is fair to take into account the fact that the father has presented or the son has presented a witness on his  of quick points i would like to me first the wife's testimony is not inconsistent as your honour's noted if you look carefully at pages two hundred forty five to fifty of the record and specifically two forty nine one of the big problems the  with the wife's testimony was she stated that her husband was unconscious but if you read the testimony it in its entirety it shows that they were holding his hand and he basically walked in bloody when he came in and then later when she was told i thought you said he was unconscious she said no i didn't say he was unconscious he was unconscious when they were beating him but not when he came home so there's actually no inconsistency there moreover now i notice that the court did have some concerns with the son's application and i'm looking at page five seventy five  administrative records the declaration of the sun is actually very terse but the sent the two sentences that issue say after about a month and a half after returning home from the army the police took me to the police station and cruelly beat me and is this statement the sentence i just read or kind of ambiguous if you put those two in context it there's not a lot of detail step forth in the declaration and the fact that he gives greater details during his testimony provided that they're not inconsistent doesn't make it basically this court is held before a general response to questioning followed by a more specific consistent response to further questioning is not a cogent reason for supporting and negative credibility fine theory was just explaining what was in his declaration he did state that it was at least four times he was taken away but that he was beaten on three here you can read the statement both ways that means each of the four times he was beaten or it could be consistent that maybe this was just a problematic area of his  further translation or correct translation of doctors statement i am not sure why that happened since i wasn't the counsel below the only thing i could say and this is speculation but i think the judge's decisions based on speculation so  speculate the other way is that this could have been the doctor friend that wrote the letter and he wrote the letter on hospital letterhead but it didn't necessarily mean that he was in fact hospitalized in an actual hospital counsel have you have a letter translated since on appeal or no remember the district court for the findings of the i j for the findings well i would i would hold that first of all it's not even an inconsistency that rightness and i gave you the premise if we thought it was a problem yes i would believe it wouldn't need further clarification i believe the respondents actually now have other relief that they may be available for to be a family petitions and also another issue is the i j a never really weight the cat claim whatsoever he basically in one sentence is a very terse sentence he basically stated that the country conditions which is required by this court's precedent now where a country conditions mentioned in the ideas decision at minimum this case needs to be remanded for cash and given all the other problems that transpired during the hearing as your honour's have mentioned about the hearing petitioner he filed the form i five eighty nine and his wife as a derivative because they're still married the son aged out so he was required to file an independent i five eighty nine and the claims are interconnected however the son's  is based upon what happened to him after he returned from the army because he wasn't physically present in the country when it happened now i would like for them to be joined since it is a family and and i don't believe that the inconsistency that the son that is attributed to the son is actually certificate and basically some completed forms whether they've been filed yet i don't know they're dated in november of this year but it's a relief that has recently become but become available