consistent in his written application his declarations and in testimony before the immigration judge both on direct and cross examination about his fathers and brothers for murders by the united smally congress about being forced to flee from his hometown and hide in the bush correct now she attempted to do that by having the interpreter come in and testify in front of her and in doing so she was able to assess this english language capabilities now we argue and the record is clear that substantial evidence does not support a finding that he was competent as an english speaker but moreover she also needed to certify that he was competent to translate into and out of somalia and there's no evidence in the record that she did that that should be the standard that should guide immigration judges in as you acknowledge the basis we found nothing in the adverse credibility decisions of this court either affirming or or overturning adverse credibility findings that were based on this particular issue the the asylum office translation  everything else is based on testimony that's taken before the immigration judge or discrepancies between a written statement and later testimony before the judge or things of that sort we believe that if you're correct is this something that should be and for the appropriate translation is for me sions to be me that's one way that your arse could resolve it but because the immigration judge's decision in this case was predicated solely upon his adverse credibility and that was related only to the asylum office testimony because she did not properly certify it she was not entitled to make that determination and therefore he should be found credible and because that was the only basis we believe that this case should just simply be reversed what do you mean by certified you heard his testimony and apparently found him credible and therefore didn't implicitly by admitting speaker for example he requested or he was asked if he wanted a small interpreter and would have accepted it before he was sworn in to testify as to his small english translation capabilities and he was also giving so the record is clear that the overwhelming evidence in the record before the immigration judge is that he was not competent as an english speaker but what we are suggesting is that in future situations and also in this case with the immigration judge should have done is to certify by bringing in a native speaker of that particular language in this case tamale to certify whether or not he is the translator at the asylum interview was competent to give a translation now if the immigration court doesn't want to do that because it's administratively burdensome that's fine all we're saying is that if you have identified problems in the asylum office interpretation that cannot be used as a basis for an adverse credibility translation argument is that it's hard to see how just a difference a translation would oring at the place where the brothers were killed from the of one another at this asylum interview but as soon as you enter if you introduce a translator problems you're getting answers that are not what is expected to a particular question and so if you're going back and try to clarify there's no real basis so it's hard to say exactly what did happen at at the asylum office interview but what we do know from the record is that mr ali was consistent at every stage when he was able to speak for himself as far as i understand that but what the believed the whole story it was pretty harsh all of the things that happened to him and to his wife and mother but it's hard to see how that relates to an actual mistranslation of difference between nineteen ninety two and ninety six for the father that could easily be right and i could be minor but where the brothers were kill what happened to the his wife and before the asylum office that there's no there's no support for for that for that proposition moreover the c f r does provide at twelve o nine point nine that it is the applicant's responsibility to interview before the asylum officer at the very first step of the process it is not the applicant's burton before the hearing where the translator is is certified to be competent as provided by the immigration court and there is a record of the is not evidence of translator interpreter problems although it's sort of odd that you have a translator that needs a translator when he's coming in to testify and he said he only understood concepts because he was from a different dialect so you're you're really left with some of these discrepancies which are quite clear it's hard to judge whether those are concepts or translation difficulties judge has to try or a fact was in the courtroom heard the testimony was able to see you know demeanor body language and take into account everything as a whole where it's hard from a dry transcript to understand perhaps he was nervous perhaps it took a few minutes for him to calm down and testify clearly second going back to your point earlier that the fact that there was such a discrepancy between the circumstances surrounding the brother's murder granted some of the dates you can see how that might be a translation problem but here we have two totally separate stories what happened between whether the brothers were killed at a coffee house or whether they were granted she said that they communicated in the a special somali language and that their dialects were different but that they generally understood each other petitioner testified at page two ten of the record that he understood the interpreter identify if there was some sort of interpretation problems going on at page two seventy six to seventy of the record she made it clear that she did not feel that there were any improprieties or concerns nothing that was concerning to her that she needed to have him come back with a different translator which is in her purview to do if she felt that there were translator problems she could say i don't think that this translator is competent you need to stop you need to go back and bring someone who can adequately translate your claim and she didn't feel she didn't feel that that was a concern in this case w i believe may twenty second may thirtieth of two thousand that the first application declaration came with the asylum application then we have the interview which occurs in august of two thousand then we have the hearing before the i j a which occurs in the last hear believe was before the decision was october two thousand and then prior to the oral decision we have the supplemental declaration which is at three hundred forty three eighty eight of the record and that was signed on october thirty first of two thousand and stimulated in november so notably after the testimony before the i j a so it was submitted after he had been alerted to the fact that there were inconsistency is some significant ones between his testimony before the immigration judge and his testimony before the asylum officer but of course that's required is and that is if you're going to base it on an inconsistency you have to tell him what it is so and he did have an opportunity also at the hearing at the end during his cross examination by service counsel and by the immigration judge also the sound but his affidavit that he said miss contemporaneously with his asylum application is consistent with his testimony as a group the initial a application generally yes it's not as detailed but this court has found that details aren't sufficient to to support an adverse credibility finding there's but it is generally consistent yes and i just found that she was very clear in her decision which i think belies petition the interpreter got it wrong i never said that that wasn't what my testimony was he must have gotten it wrong and i mean it's kind of a circular argument and the court has to come back to the burden is on the petitioner to show that the evidence compels the finding he was credible the the for the immigration joke well one response to that would be that that his story wasn't true so he was having trouble remembering what he had written down versus what if anything had really happened there esteem cases where the discrepancies are so great between what happens at the asylum interview and then in the application what happens before the immigration court and it's true that in this case he was generally consistent before the immigration court burden showing that the evidence compels a finding that he is credible thank you application in his declarations and before the immigration judge he was consistent on both ends of the process and if you had an opportunity to speak for himself at the asylum office his story would have been the exact same in there as well