to ronald i represent miss kerr in the matter before this court  sorry the findings must be supported by reasonable substantial copy of evidence in the record and they can only be disturbed if the fact finder but failed to have a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to tova turn it if i got this ca y places she told she told the officer is out of office or one day her testimony improved to one week before the immigration judge and then the question of where she lived in the marriage certificate because the two different cities are quite far apart it would seem to six years after the marriage well there's a discrepancy as to the date she said that she could not explain it i think what she was trying to say is that she didn't fill out the application she said that like it was customary for most ladies to do in india she didn't read it when she signed it that's at the record on page two seventy three but i couldn't also be read a sympathetic reading of this just as you've said and it may be the truth but and i'm sympathetic reading would be  she changed her testimony after the family's read to her but even before the family's read to her stated that she signed the register story as i signed it without looking at it and it says that we live in model town and we lived  as to that address she said that she didn't know why it was put down there was talk about it being customary for a woman to live with her husband's parents have the marriage but she stated clearly from the beginning was her husband's hometown is where her husband's that because this court couldn't say who her husband knew prior to the marriage that somehow these affidavits lacked credibility and because she couldn't identify the signatures of the individuals on on the affidavit but it's very common for a person to know somebody without actually knowing their signature despite the amount of time that she may have known the individuals and these individuals did state from their own personal knowledge that they  husband and that they knew he was involved in politics even if they didn't know him prior to the marriage they may have been aware after meeting him that he was involved in politics prior to their marriage my personal conversations but i couldn't make sense of it and partly it was because her answers were often unresponsive to the question question about one thing she talks about another thing and partly because she jumps around in time a lot and she interjects a whole lot of feelings a lot of temperaments now it may be that she's perfectly honest and she just kind of a disorganized woman with a lot of emotions and that's why she talks we all know people like  that it may also be that she's prying that blow smoke and confuse the immigration judge we know people like that too and i view of the fact that  it's administrative agency review under differential deferential standard why isn't that enough to support i j s less charitable reading because she didn't change her testimony she didn't change it from her asylum application to kind of her testimony was she's all over the place he is she's a she was a fairly disorganized witness but that shouldn't discredit her in her testimony what about the one the one day one week problem on the first would go to the heart of her claim very clear in the in the asylum officers note she said when she was rushed to the first time she said she was detained for one day on the stand she says the first time i was arrested i was detained for one week now that's pretty clear discrepancy in the record what do we do with that this court has held before that you know discrepancy such as the number of days of detention do not necessarily adversely affect the half i can just reiterate what i've said but i would like to say that there are so many times in this record where the immigration judge has stated that news corps changed her testimony when she didn't there are so many misconceptions of the immigration judge the immigration judge stated that  e wasn't able to remember her father's political group and yet she was she gave the full name of the political group when she was asked on direct and on cross so that they i j also said that she wasn't able to give political goals she wasn't asked political goals she said that she knew that the ai asked us out and i said i have worked with the group that her father was involved with but she was never asked as the judge seems to refer to describe the recent history of india including the partition and she says based on her redirect that she studied political science she graduated in ninety two and didn't pursue any politics after that point  so this is particularly difficult because it's just not part of the record had she been asked to describe these things and had she failed to do so that would have been appropriate she was never asked i have combed through this numerous numerous times and it's just third that she alluded to but i don't understand or remember but there was no third that was alluded to there were other minor visits that she said she received that her servants had on on the farm but but none as severe as these first two one nine hundred eighty nine  that i just said that was trying to feel her way through the testimony and i think that's what the court has alluded to here but the asylum application clearly states that the first contact that the father and the husband had with the s s p was a general in nature and then they were summoned and that's when the information regarding the militants became more specific and that is when a misquote and a husband were forcibly taken into police custody not done and say that the record evidence compels reversal of the agency's decision in this case immigration found that the petitioner was not credible that she had not told the truth and in that denied her applications for asylum withholding that the militants had found out about their family or had come to their home she then states that their family went to a town meeting and had informed them there not directly of their own particular instances of problems with the militants but generally speaking of problems of militants in the area but when it could be summoned by sending somebody out pick you up and take you in even if you weren't under arrest them because i think i want you to be in my office and i'll send a car around for you and you by reasonably say that i was being that you were being summoned to ca and her father all three drove down to the police station after being told to come now it would be completely implausible because she says it was her father who paid her way out and it seems impossible that she would say that she and her husband first would go that she was never even introduced or put into the her for not being responsive and that many times i think that much of this conversation was conducted in quick job it wasn't it yes you're having having done some translation work myself it seems to me that the i j a was was  accurately was a can inconsistency and went to the heart of the claim the analysis stops there the immigration judge has substantial evidence would support the i g is finding and not only that but also the issue regarding her education which  counsel has brought up here i just want to point the court to a statement she made in her own declaration attached to her application for asylum she said it stated her family were supporters of the cali party the whole family enjoys reading newspapers and having family discussions about her affairs especially sharing political views and thoughts with each other and that would completely contrast her testimony that she got a political science degree in one thousand nine hundred two and then selectively forgot everything she learned about political science and had no more contact with it that statement was her own statement therefore the immigration judge is that's and p just seven forty in the record therefore the immigration judges reliance on her every level of education and stating that the fact that she claimed to have a political science degree and indeed did didn't do so as evidenced in the record and then just say that the reason she couldn't answer questions are couldn't articulate things about militants things about what was going on in the punjab is because she didn't have might have been able to identify two militant groups before the immigration judge before the asylum officer she was not able to identify any therefore her testimony was simply improving over time moreover she also stated that she couldn't identify the militant group that w targeting her family she was never able to identify who was targeting her family or someone who was educated and had knowledge of the political events in the area and was in fact claiming persecution by a group she should at least be able to identify which group is targeting her and why also another inconsistency was she told the asylum officer that her husband was the president of the a i s s f now she testified to the immigration judge that he was simply just a member that can be found on the record at page two eighty three and also in her testimony between pages one eighty eight and one ninety one when given the opportunity to explain it which the immigration judge repeatedly did she said i don't remember the immigration judge gave her ample opportunity in this case to clarify her statements to rectify and consistencies because indeed she was jumping around a fair amount but when given the opportunity to change her statement or clarify her statement for the judge she couldn't do it now any you can par inconsistency and identify them only is looking at them and isolation with one another and you can perhaps find a plausible explanation but the immigration judge is looking at this testimony as a whole and the inconsistency is continue to mount in her explanations were insufficient for the immigration judge to find her to be credible moreover the explanations provided in briefs in later statements are not the statements of the petitioner and they certainly are not sufficient to overturn the immigration judges adverse credibility finding in this case respect to the supporting letters that were introduced the immigration judge didn't just kick them out because the petitioner didn't know the signatures what the immigration judge asked her questions were asked about it she said quote i didn't pay special attention to these affidavits and then she said she could not even testify whether the information in them was accurate or not that's in the record between pages two sixty two and two sixty three he suggested explanation the brief of why it could or could not have been considered would require this court to weigh evidence and evaluate the factual significance which is not with the standard of review requires in this case find out if the immigration judges adverse credibility finding that no reasonable adjudicator could find this person not credible fortunately for the asylum officer before the immigration judge and then the board three different levels of