just simply asked how long he rode in the car on his way to the police station it was never even brought his attention that there was a discrepancy both times he testified testified that he was arrested on his way and where exactly he was on his way when he was arrested was never brought and that's the exact same situation we have here we can speculate that there may have been a translation or we can speculate that he for whatever reason he didn't include in a raster haps he feared including it for some reason but we have we're left to way to the station but that he was picked up in the car halfway there and taken to the station so my point there is that in his mind and in my mind there isn't there's really no inconsistency there he may have omitted the first time stating that he was taken in a car he testified that he was your honor because he had an armenian translator with him and then there was there were also two translators from armenian to russian and then from russian into english and he testified that he was not comfortable  also present here for example but the officer who interviewed him in moscow certainly never testified in this case the translator was not a professional we don't know if he was ever given an opportunity to comment on the evidence or on the summary of the interview so there are numerous problems with that moscow interview for example there was inconsistency is about the location of a political rally and the court found that the material point was not the petitioner had attended the rally not the location of the rally rally and the same thing here honors the point is that he was arrested while he was involved in a with regard to the alleged discrepancy between a broken back and pelvis it's true that mr of diane initially testified that he had quote broken his back on but he quickly clarified on direct exam without prompting that he had actually broken his  pelvis he also it's also perfectly understandable that a layman like him would characterize his back as broken when his entire backside was in pain finally that can't be seen as an attempt to enhance his claim and it therefore has no bearing on credibility of a broken a please in court michael gray on behalf of the attorney general the immigration judge in this case found that mr abdel yon's claims has persecution on account of his religion or not credible on the standard this court is statutorily required  apply in reviewing that determination is extremely deferential to the r g s credibility determination only if the evidence in the record compels the contrary conclusion only if it compels a finding that mr abdel yon testimony was credible may this basis of his adverse credibility determination but even i think those types of minor inconsistencies when combined with a much larger inconsistency lane to the circumstances surrounding the arrest and his injuries sort of fit into a pattern of inconsistency that casts doubt on his credibility as a whole i have counsel about the discrepancy between the duration of his detention which are a record reading of the books like he was given two different accounts of the one of his immediate release from the others today detention you agreed that the jury did not invoke the i j a did not specifically address that in his oral decision that that's correct but i don't believe there's any standard in the regulation or nor in the factory articulation on the part of the idea certainly that those types of inconsistency when combined with the the record evidence doesn't compel a conclusion that in fact he was testifying credibly well now wait a minute just let me test what you're suggesting we should approach we should follow let's assume that all of the grounds on which the  many grounds that he did invoke none of them holds because they really didn't go to the heart of the claim or whatever but there is in the record a glaring inconsistency between the immediate something that he did not invoke and use now i'm not certain whether the court would need to go that far certainly doesn't need to go that far in this case because there are so many inconsistences but i do think that non invoking consistencies can determines that in fact there are material inconsistency that warrant invoked then i don't think you can reach the conclusion that it must be compelled to find that the petitioner was credi translation there was a lot of difficulty in the translation and because he can't based on adverse credibility finding and that situation without asking and seeking to clarify and in glow there were multiple possible interpretations of the testimony  that the i g relied on to make is that verse credibility finding and the court said when you have that situation with multiple possible interpretations you need to ask to clarify before making an adverse credibility finding in this case  and then he was arrested at other versions house for the second arrest but then in the immigration hearing before the i c a if that's that he was arrested both tanith paster heights house and those sorts of those sorts of material inconsistency is there's no reason for that i are not required to make separate findings on a cat claim and withholding claims if there's not separate evidence petitioners verna come forth with some differentiated evidence the only evidence in this case was his testimony that related to both his withholding claim his asylum claim and his cat claim there is no independent evidence that goes directly to the cat claim and that is when this court has said that the immigration judge has to make differentiated findings when there's differentiated evidence here there was no difference that evidence produced a reasons that's what he said i find that your testimony is not credible and that therefore i find that i don't even believe you've been i think that the immigration judge discharged that by saying that i find that you were not arrested you were not the and therefore there is no possibility of torture certainly the country report doesn't indicate if you read it there's any possibility issue for which you're seeking relief is sufficient to preserve the claim that's the ashcroft and in this case that was mentioned it is not it's not extensively argued in the brief but it certainly mentioned that that issue was being appealed so i don't think there's any failure to exhaust that issue in addition as this court has held that country conditions alone can be decisive in granting that relief and so that issue certainly was not addressed by the i j a and with respect to the opportunity to explain not only is the i j a supposed to confront