al depending on which case but it's true although it is deferential to some extent this court is required immigration judges to do certain things to get the deference for example it's required immigration judges to rely on enough about what is inconsistency so far but the ones that the immigration judge did mention such as the difference between bombs and guns or whether her application or her statement were exactly the same length and said the exact and it also gave grounds having to do with with the philosophical political objections she had and just tease that out of her as to which ground was which you're actually what is it that you want there are those ok the immigration judge first of all focused on this is this difference between whether she didn't want to work in the chemical weapons factory on a moral ground or on a health first of all i don't think that that's a real inconsistency because mr sheehan testified that she didn't want to work there for both reasons however to the extent it is an inconsistency it doesn't go to the heart of her silent claim because it doesn't enhance it any issue here and what you have to look at to determine whether the adverse credibility finding the support of by substantial evidence on account of her those if it turns out she doesn't want to go there for health reasons that's not a political reason i mean th fact that their government the hezbollah imputed a political opinion to her of being quote against the government they repeated this and her testimony is having saying to her why are you against the government if you're against the government it's going to go very you it doesn't matter why she didn't want to work in the factory what's crucial here is that she didn't is that she refused to work in the factory in other words in other words her asylum claim rests on three things that she was persecuted on  protected ground and that it was done by the government there's no serious dispute that was done by the government here so the only dispute is whether the what happened to her rises to a level of persecution or whether it ever whether it was done in a political ground i think that the government's testimony especially in the testimony especially in the context of having been arrested by the hezbollah and then beaten and imprisoned for two weeks shows that they had imputed a political opinion to her and i think that the what happened to her in the context there of being taken from her home when she refused to show up to work at the factory being imprisoned being beaten being given credible if you know not to rocks death threats rises to a level of persecution and that's why i judges that immigration judges do that and this immigration judge didn't do that here and there's two big things that the immigration judge never accounted for in any respect in her opinion she never accounted for any translation difficulties and i'm not saying that translations need to be one hundred percent accurate we're not making a due process claim here however there needs to be something in the record on the i g is opinion sank i realize that mr sheehan's testimony for example might have suffered from any of translation difficulty i think that easily explains the difference honor i don't know that i agree that it's reasonably clear but to the extent you're correct and that is what's crucial a focus on is why the immigration judge denied the credibility finding and the immigration judge here and someone i think they term is identified factory i mean there's there's a host of possibilities and i'm not saying that those possibilities are necessarily true but i'm saying the immigration judge never considered them and never rejected them although counsel for a highly trained professional  surprising lack of detail in what she was working on and even if she was severely compartmentalized that she couldn't see the whole product from start to finish and wasn't sure what she was working on really a quite of the really wasn't much much detail that she could provide is that what those are the oh you're right ok well i'll start with your question there i don't know why there isn't more detail here but it's not our responsibility to figure that out at this point how responsibility is to figure out if the immigration judge satisfied the substantial other standard immigration judge here did not because they did not focus on explaining these things this court has previously held to explain like alternative explanations like  like having that inconsistency is go to the heart of the claim and also i just added jurisdictional question we don't have a final order removal in this case and typically that is what gives us jurisdiction is it your position that the mere granting of cat relief convention against torture relief is enough which was i write a basis by which we have jurisdiction i didn't i did not start off with the jurisdiction of question but i think absolutely your honor however here there is a final order of move all because and for the very simple reason she's removable currently anywhere but iran there is an order that's final and she's removable and that is a final perhaps we can say that crisply enough in our brief and i regret that but i don't think that there is a sufficient distinction between being granted cap relief and not being granted cavalier for this court's jurisdictional purposes one last question if you preserve your withholding of removal may please the court eric martell or the united states government as to our two main arguments in this case the first is that this court does have jurisdiction over the petition for review because it is a final order of remove will secondly the government believes that the eight u s c section twelve fifty two we believe that under eight us the section eleven zero one eight forty seven this decision by the immigration judge is a final order the immigration judge found it states that the order of deportation is final when it is affirmed by the board of immigration appeals in this case the board affirmed without opinion the decision of the immigration judge making it a final order remove the government concedes that there is some tension with this argument with t until we dispose of long long if the court believes if the court disagrees in first and i think there is some distinction between this case and luna camacho however if the court disagrees and believes that this case is  removeable and then granted asylum i believe the board of appeals denied reversed the finding of asylum and granted and then ordered remove all the  really does a bad job there's no one there to immigration judge took steps to remedy that being a problem the immigration judge asked similar questions repeatedly in different ways sometimes offering hypotheticals in an attempt to make sure that the petitioner was clear as to what the what confidence do we have that the translator understood those answers in armenian and was able to convey them in english or would even know how to translate a term that was perfectly understandable in armenian into its corresponding technical term the immigration judge put you much weight in the names of the chemicals that were being used by the wouldn't that be relevant to to to help us understand what it was that she was working on it may be but your honor that the immigration judge whose decision wasn't based on what she was working on it was b primarily on what occurred during her interrogation it was based on the fact that the them gratian judge actually credited parts of her testimony he credited the fact that she worked at this weapons factory and that she'd been transferred there and that she was  interrogation asking why what with what questions were asked of her and she said she was asked about her unwillingness to cooperate and working at the factory she was also asked why what did you tell them in response to that question and she's told the interrogators that she didn't want to work there because it was harmful to her he also the immigration good has multiple questions about why the government would believe that she was against the government simply because she didn't want to work in the factory and the petitioners your responses were were unresponsive to the question she said in response to the first question what about the weapons they were going to use in the future it doesn't answer the question she asked what about the parts of the weapons that in the future were going to be used to hurt people she seemed to be avoiding the question and that was a critical aspect of her case because it was her claim is based on imputed political opinion which means what do the interrogators think her views believed that he was protesting or not working in the factory because of her political opinion it seems that based on what she told them that the reason that they would have believed was that she didn't want to deal with the unhealth the effects of working in such a