thousands and hundreds of thousands during the progress and the war between armenia and azerbaijan well let's just for a moment if you accept that the adverse credibility finding on the bra level of persecution after all she only needs to show the ten percent of probability that she will be harmed if she returned to armenia however going back to the rape incident if we read up location for asylum her problems in the media and if we read the text itself as advocates brief pointed out it doesn't say that the rape did not occur it says that there were attempts of the use and the rape so we don't really given an opportunity to explain and she did and the court could have accepted that but on the other side we do have a discrepancy in the dates we do have areas where she didn't describe certain things and the court was concerned about that and so at the end of the day after the court pointed all those out gave her an opportunity kept explanations for the court which the court could have accepted why are we compelled to come to the conclusion that your client wants us to come to you as to as opposed to it's not a situation that there's not a discrepancy it's not just the reports are but they are she said what she said at those given times why are we compelled to do otherwise because the discrepancy in instances that happened twelve to fourteen years ago a reasonable and this course simply help is think that people are not walking around with a timestamp in their brains it's a human nature also we need to understand that something that happens fourteen or twelve inconsistent that gave rise to that those one start of it is they couldn't get their story straight because it didn't happen ok that's one side of it and also she didn't say certain things at a certain time you know she gets more specific as the longer she's in this country obviously and you know that i get kind of felt like hey you know someone could be telling you this and so that because obviously as a woman being raped because of your ethnicity you know that's a home run and it her story gets more specific as she's here longer and all of that that's one way to look at it the other way is the i j a could have said well you know i believe you i've seen you testify here and those are logical reasons why it could happen that way but the  know why is one more reasonable than the other is that they just relayed the historical events and it just relayed the reasons why she left because the sound officer was a male so it's clear that the tempest in the briefs about the inconsistency is having to do with whether she didn't tell the asylum officer is not what's driving the immigration judge's decision and in fact the immigration judge makes it very clear that she's basing her credibility finding on the demeanor of mr crocker when the judge says on page fifty five testimony to indicate that she did not recall correctly and therefore that it did occur when she was still there and indeed the record bears this out on one thirty two one thirty three you'll see that it's only after being confronted with the inconsistency that mr krugman next reaches for all kinds of excuses such as i was on medication and i'm on medication now it's been a long time but the record is clear that this is an important distinction because in  that shows that it was tied to her ethnicity or that the government did it or if they acquiesced and indeed the record on reporting is also very clear where she  line six to twelve about was this a government official or not and she gets several stories too she's not very clear about it but her last answer was that the business was a cooperate of private business  correction of the prior testimony or as a synonym or if the witness is simply confused the idea clearly found that the person the male person here was not a government official and on the basis of this testimony there's nothing that c ninety rape out as she was found sure incredible on that with everything else what if we just are crazy and said felt that she was entitled to the presumption of past prosecute you know that there was that she had established persecution pa that whether it's enough to show for future persecution on the other before you said it's not enough to rebut and it's essentially both groups are correct and you would need to remember get that determine if you were to find that the that there were press persecution indicated before i don't think that's where you're at the rape is the central event of the credibility findings made by the judge or not we still have to based on this record if if first we have to decide is the adverse credibility finding that held on the right right because if we didn't feel that that was that held then if she were pretty incredible on that then clearly there's past persecution that's right right that if we decided that it doesn't compel a different result then my understanding of the record is everything else the judge did not make an adverse credibility finding on her correct i mean the judge may have said there wasn't and th great for i think that the judge would not have gone on to discuss a nexus on the attempted rape if the judge had just simply gently deemed all of the evidence incredible right that's right so we except that if that's true we testimony as true as to everything else and decide whether or not that's sufficient to establish past persecution right attitude towards mixed as very i mean this is that she was constantly harassed she was constantly beaten people in her situation also were constantly beaten and harassed should she try to complain couple of times on different occasions nevertheless she did not get any response from the government and she obviously sees the situation around her there is no reason to complain again it's useless finally i don't believe that she wasn't targeted by the government because she believed in the situation where the local government controlled everything and refused to act and the local governments actually went after her even if it wasn't the government assuming arguendo the government wasn't able or willing to control the state department countries so for her to be even persecuted by the locals she had no way to go to the government and ask for help because the government in fact encouraged her to be everybody in the area was telling her to leave leave leave you don't mixed in addition to that government is arguing that the presumption wasn't about number one they're arguing it has to be met it doesn't have to be remanded there are numerous reports that show that they couldn't possibly rebut the presumption  hiding she only got the visa and she left the country i don't i don't believe and i disagree with the government's that by the fact that she returned just to pick up her visa and leave the fact itself rebuts the presumption a future prosecution