the petitioners counsel during direct examination starting from the record on ninety eight for the next ten or so pages when discussing what happened in the restaurant during that stock and  even the petitioner did confuse his testimony on the one hand and say they walk slowly on the other hand say they walked with a little bit of speed this was irrelevant it has nothing to do change anything under penalty of perjury and he replied no he did not wish to change anything in this one page asylum declaration yes he was familiar with what was in it and it was correct and true as written it doesn't  on fire your argument is he ought to be denied relief because he says you're fired on the restaurant he says no i thought i meant they sent the restaurant on fire and you think that's enough to support the adverse credibility determination t question is why does that go to the heart of the claim one reason your honor is that gun shots are something one is likely to remember their qualitatively different than other events and why if a gunshot went off in this courtroom i sure you all of us would remember that event it goes to the fact that this petitioner may not have experienced these events no no i'm asking you that undermine the claim that the restaurant with set on fire it undermines the claim that petitioner is presenting a credible four five one and that make a big difference probably not a big difference your honor i'll concede that but i would i would like to point to another inconsistency that i think is more significant and that is when he the three boys the term conclusions with respect to the crooks presents this is it only goes to his petitioners credibility as to whether or not these events actually occurred or not he states in his testimony without any reservation that he went in there dinner for these boys who came in and because the cook and all the waiters had gone home that's in the record he then states well no the cook was actually there this is an inconsistency that relates to an event that is at the heart of his claim the event was the boys coming to the restaurant and the inspector injuring the restaurant as to whether they how they left one by one or left rapidly or quickly ali can see that's that's not significant but he goes back and forth on an event that relates to a memorable occasion he was there something seared in his memory because the the inspector came in and according to his story began beating him right there in his restaurant it also goes to the the burden of proof if there were a cook present m he said he says that the cooking is that all along home i gave her some money to cook with me or you're reading from page one eleven your honor one thirty five all right but on page one thirty three he says clearly the cook and the waiters had gone disagree roger and suggest that the immigration judge here recently reached the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not these events happens these are two occasions that would be seared in the memory of petition and he can't get his story straight as to where he was and what he was doing and what happened those are relevant to an immigration judges conclusion that this person is not reliable well you've done a better job i just want to address this issue about the fire at the restaurant government council had pointed out that if someone were here's a gunshot they remember it clearly and that's not a fact that they w there's no reason to think that he would have seen or heard a gunshot and that would have left an impression on him and then he somehow forgot to testify about it again i think that's an immaterial inconsistency as far as whether the cook was there or boys that were at his restaurant thank you for the questions for you