what was the basis for the adverse credibility finding by the immigration judge within the record of proceedings the record of proceedings excluded exhibit eleven which was the quote assessment to said under oath that led to the credibility funny no your honor the immigration judge did not rely on exhibit two whatsoever in his determination that respondent was incredible instead  said quote and i should paraphrase these are not direct quotes there was a conflict ing testimony from respond to conflicting that is at least since four is the testimony in the court versus the stephen statements provided  told today in court so if one looks at page fifty three fifty one fifty two primarily fifty three the court is relying on what was told to the asylum office and also using exhibit three which interview statements provided certainly can refer to declarations it could draw on but elsewhere at page fifty two the immigration judge recording refers to immigration judge is mentioning the written statements and i don't believe the immigration judge relied on those because even those conflicted with what was told to the asylum officer according to this  to save his life at the asylum officer interview at in exhibit three and during oral testimony before the immigration you have before the immigration judge and exhibit eleven shows that that and in that says the reason why i did it is because i was intimidated i wasn't was prepared at most and for importantly i did not want to go back i wanted to save my life sort of it's not a question of whether there i inconsistency or whether he lied the question is why he lied and because how much does that matter yes and the immigration judge is struggling with that he again has to compare what is lie is not enough i find that exhibit at exhibit three but the basis for the law i what is that and so he incorrectly says that that respondent conflicts with his own statements regarding what happened at this hour master interview versus what he is saying at the immigration court because this is the immigration judge saying that oh at this solemn office are saying it's because there's a translation problem and so forth  and in writing exhibit three i felt see here i didn't want to go back home and be killed unquote the way also at court i'm speaking from the heart i was trying to protect myself in exhibit three i have to save my life so that that that your argument is that shows that he had a sincere theory of persecution my argument is that if the at the immigration judge is simply saying i need a basis to see if th believe him well i'm going to rely on what he says about this found a modern view that's inconsistent with what he said today so i can't the ultimate basis of my decision is what is the basis for the why we know you've why what's the basis for schroeder may please the court on henry ralls with the department of justice united states mich that there is substantial evidence supporting the decisions of the court below and the appeals board in denying asylum withholding of removal and two years later the supplemental declaration and the testimony in court or consistent largely with each other been inconsistent on a very important point inconsistent with the first two statements the immigration judge evidence when he looked at the immigration interview that was used to impeach you have all this before him most of the statements rorion evidence except for the saddam interview which was marked up but not admitted but was used for impeachment he to the testimony at the hearing no you know he didn't he didn't do that we don't submit it he didn't he had it before him because it was used to impeach in the regard that was used to impeach in that regard he used to compare it with the testimony the he was cross examine to baptise prior statement this prior interview and the government counsel went through it and he said again and again yes i said that but this is the way it was groups that he said he was in and his prior statements he didn't didn't mention when he testified at trial or through the in the supplemental declaration he also admitted testifying at trial or at the hearing about the shooting incident in the van where he said his brother was wounded with a bullet and that certain student was killed he didn't mention that in his hearing testimony that he had mentioned in previous statements the ones that took place two years before but the thing that really stop tischendorf was the inconsistency and the supplemental declaration where he said that he had been untruthful to the asylum officer and then he testified about another reason he showed inconsistency between his last two statements for the reasons that he said he lied to the asylum officer two years before the immigration judge went into great detail about the us and this is the thing that really the main fact of the same to turn the case he had a lot about the reason that he lied he said at the prowl that he was confused he was intimidated he couldn't communicate well he said things that came to the top of which he had when he talked to the asylum interview officer however his supplemental declaration he said i had to save my life the immigration judge considered that and when he looked at it you believe that really nothing that the petitioner stated could be believed because he lied about the fact that he lied he couldn't keep her story straight in regard that the petition argues that the supplemental declaration if it had been considered would have turned the whole case around with a made a big difference but just presume that this was exhibit two  does seem to control this case because if he's found to lack credibility for me based on the signing statements in the same hearing then he's in he doesn't have credibility for any of the claims that washes over the claims here we believe that  fact that he lacked credibility if he can be believed about the asylum claims he couldn't they believed about the different events that he was describing that actually would have shown torture if they really can be believed about anything and he there was no need to actually go into every specific claim one seat once he found the lack credibility that went to the heart of everything that he had presented all the statements came from him of course his testimony came from him really nothing left that's true again under under the spiral case if you are lacking credibility based only statements i mean all the claims should settle and that that's pretty apparent that he did find the lack of overall lack credibility about his torture testimony or anything else then he couldn't establish claim if he couldn't show torture we don't know what the country report says what he thought of it and i guess we know what it says we could read but he didn't give  of removal claim and i find him incredible for his convention against torture claim but one one finding really goes to all of them none of the claims could be established if the petitioner lack judge first of all in reference to come out of that in that position was found to be incredible and then the last the ninth circuit stated that the four mandatory factor standard to sixteen is me to a point when six the cat claim the sole basis for that finding even credibility was the fact that the immigration judge perceived his underlying rationale for the lie of the asylum office to be different than the rationale that he was giving at the immigration hearing before the immigration judge but that's incorrect if one looks at one of four one three two and two forty eight the whole time he says it's because you want to save his life so that can't be the basis on the record to find