the board disagreed with a major element of the immigration judges holding that the fact that our colleague a doll man is a legal party in india made it incredible that the petitioner would be persecuted for links to it judge determines that your client lacks credibility then gave him wrong not if it was a minor inconsistency are they well let's talk about two that concern me and perhaps you can respond to intelligence speculation about why something might or might not be in the affidavit when it was pointed out that the item actually was in the affidavit that he naturally responded to that issue so i think it does not support a negative credibility it was merely his responding to a belief that a certain item was in the affidavit you know in a regular normal trial the witness gets on the stand and says x happened or testimony wouldn't a reasonable fact finder any jury would ever be perfectly entitled based on that alone to disregard the entirety of the witnesses hears it in fact you actually contradicted but i don't believe the mother affidavit then when he was shown the translations that oh yeah it's there i guess but that's a translation problem that doesn't necessarily support negative credibility and we know that under bhandari near omission does not in  there couldn't have been interruptions in that time this affidavit doesn't say at all moments he was with me so i don't think it necessarily directly contradicts story along with burden of proof in your argument it sounds like you're saying if there's any conceivable explanation of a parent must be disregarded so i thought it was just the opposite it is you it is the opposite of your honor but i think that's the mr singh provided plausible explanations and under nice a good president that's what really required possible an explanation for this i'm sorry when you offer an explanation for this in the sense that he stated persuasively he responded precisely to the singh's case for example that the rest ninety five then later on he was arrested in ninety nine the i j a conflated these items together which raises very worrisome issues about whether or not i was really paying attention which i think has a lot to circumstances necessarily support a negative credibility i would reserve the balance of my time loss there are more questions that the declaration submitted by more than seeing contradictory respondents testimony concerning the date of the dates that respondent was in the united states manson's declaration should not be entitled to any evidence re weight i think the exchange that i had with your the contradictions with the other affidavits that you submitted again he went to them for the board and mistreated record sixteen and stated please pull those they contradict and they shouldn't be given any evidentiary weight whatsoever and as the immigration judge pointed out there are nine or ten different ones the one thing we really do need to focus more on the board's decision because that's what this court is affirming and the board's decision points to you know here's here's something went back and forth but whichever version rules the day well there it is you can't do that it has to be one of the other and you've got to explain it you can in the end say whichever version rules the day answer to the questions and i don't see it i don't really see a contradiction between an affidavit of an uncle who says that a certain individual had been there a certain period of time which doesn't allow for possible travel during that period i mean it's just it's just like certain laws and i would have a lot most concern about this particular point if your client