d abortion and many years after she had the st and i read the what the board was saying is that this casts doubt on her testimony that she was doing all of this to escape persecution  and though i know the courts can look to any discrepancy because i just think this is really really ten gentil and doesn't have any impact on her  why she married this gentleman so shortly before coming to united states even if she her motive was to possibly bring him over as judge speculated that this has nothing to do  and lastly there was an issue on corroboration and my argument per the brief was that the judge was concerned that there were two copies of the medical records that were filed  well let's just go to redirect and then that was never addressed until her decision where she cornett out marius issues with documents but never gave responder richey and explain it's possible that the clerk was application and that this somehow casts doubt on her simone and that the nd abortion occurred yes it was very conspicuous that you know at the end of if they were just lobbying about everything wouldn't they invent them as having happened before they visited these countries i mean what sense does it make that they would invent the nd abortion after one as you  point out that detracts from rather than ads from credibility so i do have some some difficulty seeing how the quote unquote timeline shows that the story about the nd abortion was false day but then when confronted with the fact that she would sixteen hours away she said that her mother the next day and then you have two different letters in the record council you know i agree with you that she admitted  that her original statement about when exactly her mother arrived couldn't have been true how is that how is that material i mean what difference does it make whether a mother arrived that day  entire claim i mean this goes to her claim that she has an abortion it's not trivial it was part of the evidence that she submitted by yet there's two different letters in the record about this and one of the most glaring and i  d argument the st argument today and i talked and what came up there was that you know even if there if there's just one thing that one thing is enough to support an document before her hearing and she was actually provided an extension for the hearing in order to rectify the inconsistency i mean there are instances he says that they had with the medical records previously submitted one it says she only had an abortion an anaesthetic and makes no reference to the i i used a and surgeon and there's also differences in the original mandarin document that would talk about the marriage and the timing of the marriage when they broke up and buy back together and then you know she was married in august but then the real marriage happened and september during the marriage certificate yet in the record you have the country i believe she even stated but yet her husband powerful graduate very soon said that he was married so that i mean that was even it didn't rectify the issue there and  kind of a finding by the helps you i can remember i don't think they relied on that particular finding i might be wrong on that but it looks to me from reading that that the i j a was simply speculating about what the i j a thought was logical or real logical in china as opposed to deciding on the evidence that something showed that is fine wouldn't actually have been imposed and again although it's neither here nor there we see lots of cases all the time with lots of lines in china for lots of things i don't think that won't help you very much ok i mean even putting that aside at this time i know ben the problem with the document the fact that a lot of these documents were issued after he had already come to the united states like he certificate which she had been divorced in two thousand and nine he got granted custody in two thousand and eleven and yet she didn't have a copy of the birth certificate and also her household registration month and it stayed until after the fact and then again said that she would not marry me at all of these little things none of them are minor but that you know they all go to the claim and when you look at the whole big picture it really counts out on this was just rubber stamp by the board they didn't give it any analysis the judge engaged in some analysis which she never come from but the respondent i reviewed the record line by line what happened was there were finally agreeable done by the attorney's office respondent just gave him a document yes there's a possible difference between what purports to be the original and i think the respondent deserves a chance to