merits first of all she simply did not understand or listen to the testimony the questioning of the solemn applicant began on page one of the two of the record by page one of the nine t petitions of czerny had asked him thirty one questions and twenty now those questions have received clear response of answers and the other questions were slightly off the other answers were slightly off the mark the still relevant at that point the judge abruptly stopped the questioning and asked both the interpreter and the petitioner if they had any problems with communication mr tom and suddenly she started out with saying at least half the questions have been asked by your own counsel the answers to those questions have been non responsi counsel objective she raised that estimate to ninety nine percent this was not true the record speaks for itself well you can read those eight pages it's a judge correct there will agree with  appeal to the right that's correct and what were the grounds that you raised in the appeal to the grounds were raised there to judge's findings regarding credibility or not supported by anything in the e testified to he testified to things they did not cover in his written statement that was one of the issues before the i g a in the questioning right why there was a discrepancy that there was she made a combined she said specifically she told the government attorney don't bother cross examining i know with this case is doing i pretty much know what my decision is going to be at this point but by all means if you are just addressing that way all right you never gave an explanation why there was that discrepancy at the hearing he was not asked about that by anybody by the judge but the part that was the question i thought is that we we don't talk about those things well during his testimony or he was talking about being forced to serve on the coke bottle he said i haven't told anybody about this and  he had dictated the story to a friend who had written it down and that is was a statement that was attached to the application was filed and he testified about that and then you may be able to s of the the judge having apparently noted is these discrepancies had an obligation if she felt that this was an important issue she had an obligation to ask him at least one question about  this she you know i did not ask any questions about this she told the trial attorney don't bother asking questions i've already made up my mind the best test of credibility is in searching cross examination and she already told  sometimes if you're proffering or with this you want him to be subject to cross examination because by was standing cross examination he was on direct testimony that is correct that adequately addressed the credibility issue and the board did not make a credibility finding the it is the judge's credibility finding and you have a right to review the credibility finding and if you disagree with the credibility finding and you find that that the evidence compels a contrary did conclusion you have a right to reverse the immigration judge grant the asylum and call it is when she had gotten only thirty percent of the way through the direct examination and already made a statement on the record that she didn't believe anything she was hearing at that point he had asked thirty one questions it was twenty one questions were very clear what is your name where were you born where did you go to school what country are you from and she said she didn't understand any of those answers  stated what the standard was first on what the senate was for withholding she never discussed the standard for withholding which is more likely than not it is the lowest standard she never discussed that if we were to reverse on that ground not been addressed cannot this they all say adequately addressed that i don't think so because if the if grant of the right to pursue such additional evidence is maybe necessary case and in the board's decision it outlined for very specific discrepancies between the testimony and the silent application all of which goes to the heart of the claim which are based the claim is essentially based on a series asylum claim and withholding claim or a convention against torture claims it is true that in certain cases you may have different facts or someone may not succeed on a trial if you take this the suffix of the most outrageous or others are not credible you still can find the history one could but not on this record because it was in fact a significant discrepancies between the asylum application that seven page very very detailed despite the immigration judges comment on the record the trial attorney went on to conduct an fairly extensive cross examination which raised the very discrepancies noted by the board in its opinion and question the alien about was said in the asylum application and what was said in the testimony such that the testimony was much worse for the first one is that you mentioned  inconsistency so much as a discrepancy in the sense that it's not a contradiction both statements could be true one just adds additional information that there's not an explicit contradiction it's just the failure to discuss either event in the one in the application that conflicts with the testimony at the hearing now with regard to the january one thousand nine hundred four arrest and detention there is a direct contradiction in his application in that affidavit he said that he was detained and interrogated that he requested and received counsel and he was released on his own recognizance in his testimony he said he was detained beaten forced to walk on glass stabbed and then thrown in the street there's a significant difference between the account of that event between the two and obviously the second one once again there's no i take it to mean that the board understand the word discrepancy to describe these differences between the asylum application and the testimony whether this court calls and discrepancies and consistency or any one could expect that that's not what occurred in this case this is not a case in which he said i was beaten and in this application and in the testimony explain how you speak with what by whom that sort of thing there are it's a significant of the story at the testimonial stage secondly with regard to this attachment this affidavit he filed as an attachment to his asylum application it starts out it's clearly prepared by somebody with a good understanding of united states and then what you were saying your honor and it is not uncommon for nailing to provide more detail as the testimony states that he's preparing the application but here it's the level of detail and the tremendous discrepancies now and it's not just one point it's for a specific encourage reason supported by the board which is more than enough to support an adverse credibility finding the alien has not until this day asked for this case to go back to you and different immigration judge he did not ask for that when he was there for about represented by counsel at the board stage i think it's failed to exhaust that issue and i fail to see any due process claim which could be sustained based on the conduct of the hearing especially given that the board specifically review i would just make one point regarding the board's findings the born understood that the judge should not mean malik without credibility fighting they went through the record and the best they could come up with was the issues and when they got through doing all that they did make credibility finding they said his credibility was hampered his credibility was degraded well ok credibility can be hampered but that's part of finding of no