for the morning may please the court my name is george treaties appearing on behalf of the petitioner gurdjieff car and her appeal from a final order rendered by the board of immigration appeals the board of summarily affirmed the immigration judge's decision pursuant to a streamlining authority and therefore th wooden stick and raped the government of the immigration judge in denying fishnets claim for lack of credibility relied on doubts she had concerning  whereabouts for the subsequent to her departure from her village where she went to hiding and in addition the judge questioned statements she made at the border interview upon her entry to the united states as well i remember from my notes she at one time classified that she left after being raped because of her political position as being a hiding out that raises the specter of maybe she's not hiding out at all and if she's not hiding out at all it's because she doesn't have any fear of persecution and that kind of some do of the heart of the matter if she did what she persecuted and issue about to be persecuted how do you deal with one or yaar i see the court's points but at the same time how can we head she went to the ground to anticipating a rest by border officials that arrived subsequently she testified that she was interviewed at the border and that she made various claims that she conceded that she testif her claim then i could i can see that i might be wrong but as standing in front of you i cannot conceive of a think you can say here we have a twenty year old girl who was told by i an agent to make certain statements she's a twenty year old girl she's relying on this person she's afraid of returning to india she's simply trying to to get into united states to meet up with her but with acquaintances that can care for her she makes statements wholly based on what she's been told to say and then she somebody who came to nice with that intent from the beginning now i also want to point to the fact that the government and their answering brief as has already conceded that at least half of the incredibly concerned cited by the i j are very you please the court stacy young for the united states just as burden here is a high one she must show not only that the evidence supports the finding that she is credible but compels it because the immigration judges adverse credibility determination  her relationship to paul karr seeing seems very attenuated she said that one point he was like a brother to her but immediately after she said that he didn't she didn't know him very well so it was unpersuasive her story as to how she was arrested in this  inconsistently only comes about if you parse language in translation very carefully right it's only if you say because mother said our instead of my because she said parents instead of honor but she was given an opportunity to explain these inconsistency is and even her explanation of the in consistencies were questionable for example she was what she was asked to explain the inconsistency regarding whether it was her parents who bought the plane ticket or not first she said that it was her travel agent who told her to say that it was her parents who purchased the plane ticket in leaders she said well no that's not true actually parents mean my mother and relatives not my must original lane caught up coming over the border that she feared going back to india that was substantial inconsistency she was given an opportunity to check the box on her notice to rights form which specifically said she feared persecution testify himself but she actually did testify she said that she understood what was said to her and read to her in her native punjabi and what's in page one twenty nine of the record and where is it on the form  i'm sorry never been to the ocean yes well the resisters inability to know some basic trivia again was not the main reason the immigration judge found her to lack credibility it was one of many but  one of the six or seven principal reasons but again not the main reason and certainly not the only one even if this reason to be dismissed there would be substantial evidence still remaining that more than supports the immigration judges contrast to page one thirty seven of the record where she said that all carson was like a brother to her and this again relates to the primary example of past persecution petitioner sites and the fact that she can't even get her story straight with regards to her relationship to this individual who allegedly was responsible in some way for her being arrested and subsequently persecuted really casts some serious doubt on eighty one thirty seven yeah quite specifically because like he was my friend's brother he was also like a brother to me well at other points she does mention that she met him often at her school that she knew him very well supports the conclusion that i just missed testimony was repeatedly and materially inconsistent and i'm persuasive because this case does not present the compelling circumstances necessary to overturn an adverse credibility determination the petition for review in this case should be concerns after the fact were confined to the what the immigration judge said so for instance then an immigration judge fault did not find any fault with with petitioners testimony regarding her arrest for her political activities is not only reasonable but it would be unreasonable to have to believe that she would testify any other way you probably apply for asylum or your honor she was placed in perceiving so she would have to file defensively however she did announce her intent to a fall for is whether her explanation upon and really country was reasonable as we might decide to be whether the immigration officer during the testimony and that point was simply because she did not know what you piece that stood for by virtue of the fact that she had had a twelve year education and had lived in sharn poor in three months that the judge found that to be unreasonable but i would find it unreasonable for her your honor and so that would be informational and permissible speculation on that point and then by virtue of the fact that we have gone through five to six factors and four of them have been four of them can either be construed as minor or not even they see that all or just mere speculation all we have really is what the honorable judge person has has spoken about the what was said at the interview on the border and so i beseech this court on behalf of the petitioner based on the circumstances of her entry to find that it was unreasonable for her to disclose her asylum claim at that point based on her reliance on her age and her age the manner in which she entered the united states she became an