a jehovah's witness who's been persecuted in armenia because of for religious beliefs the judge in this case the immigration judge  significant inconsistency at the immigration judge and between her application and her testimony is it your argument that she's she was credible her testimony was credible and then how do you explain the inconsistency  alive at that time well point his point if we look just at the testimony that she gave at her hearing this is seem to be enough there to really support her claims if she were credible the application however was made up by somebody else wasn't based on what she told this person and in evidence there is the armenian writing word she has written her story yes so we should disregard the testimony at the hearing and rely on the on what she said in your application yes because of her medical condition because there were credible witnesses who came to the hearing  her behalf there is after davis from armenia indicating that she was a jehovah's witness so if this person had we don't know how our medical condition was at the time when she was preparing her asylum application client to prevail she needs to show individualized persecution there's there are a few incidents worse she has an inert asylum out there is the one her where her husband for four days it's on page one hundred eighty one of the records of there's a few others that's she was beaten up on the on the same page if you look at page persecution i think she indicated that she was detained and she was persecuted but she couldn't specify exactly religious gathering and they were attacked and by this be beaten at that time you're honest my name is jeffrey bernstein and i represent the attorney general of the united states and first i'd like to talk about this memory loss issue which counsel raises i guess there is a medical document in the record which  diagnosed her in a medical reporter gets issued by the year later with short term memory loss as opposed to long term memory loss and a few other conditions again it was short term memory loss and the she first came to him about four to six days after this sound application was prepared and was a short term memory loss so clearly she should have been continue your case so i'm having trouble if if she seems in comprehensible i think hearing clearly even the i j a indicates there's something going on how can we say that there's an adverse credibility determination if her confused testimony is not consistent with her application i'm having trouble seeing how that's supported by substantial evidence well that's a number of questions your honor the immigration judge has certainly indicated at one point that she may have she might she may be confused there's no question about that he also did make an ad which credibility germination because again nothing she said very little of what she said was consistent with the asylum application that were almost diametrically opposed so what is what does that leave the immigration judge if the petitioners burden of proving her case for asylum so what's he left to believe he can't english she signed the application and so attested to it so i guess i'm i'm wondering what's the basis for saying that it's not credible that the i j a seem to face that determination it's only i comparing the application with her her testimony right here and that's right she came to the hearing to testify regarding her asylum application and everything she said was almost diametrically opposed there are certain things that she said that were consistent with her asylum application it says that she was held for four days in a frozen cell without food for four days in her testimony she mentions nothing about being held for four days she there's any doubt about that that the troubling question to me is that the her testimony at the hearing didn't seem to be comprehensible she was not responding appropriately to questions when asked about don't think the hearing testimony reveals that she you know had absolutely no idea it was going on and she didn't respond to questions she was asked what her problems were and she said well my husband and i was lonely after that and i was unable to make a living because the government stopped the pension when her husband died and that's perfectly responsive so why there is absolutely no evidence that she she simply couldn't give a comprehensible account but the immigration judges i said before was left in the in a quandary for what to believe she said she had memory loss she said she had memory loss short term memory loss she said she e i think if they're clearly incompetence then perhaps the immigration judge should hold the hearing and inquire of counsel etc as to what to do but i don't think the immigration judge it's clear that the immigration judge didn't find her entirely incompetent and i think the record of hearing establishes that she's not incompetent because she was able to understand and answer questions now some of her answers were i don't know for there's no indication that she wasn't misunderstanding the question  an overall view of the hearings transcript does not reveal someone who is incompetent to reveal somebody who cannot provide the information consistent with that information which may or may not have been provided to her by her in the asylum application now the immigration judge was not you know mean to this individual she the immigration judge indicated that he did feel sorry for her situation that there was nothing that he entirely incompetent then if there is some other way that the individual can establish the facts of their case then they would be entitled to asylum but again it's the aliens burden and if there is absolutely no credible evidence to support a determination an individual is is entitled to asylum even if the individual is incompetent to testify then asylum can't be granted now the immigration judge did indicate that there were other there there were other ways that this woman could proceed and he advised  attorney that perhaps the attorney should have applied to the ins at that time the v h s now for such action but no application  question as i recall there's no question that that he that his general remarks it's evidence of the concern but there is again no question in my mind based upon my reading of the transcript and the immigration judge's decision that she was clearly not incompetent to be quite honest with you your honor i think as the immigration judge thought that she was probably channeling the truth at the and you know she she clearly had undergone jehovah's witness training in the united states and she was continuing to undergo there's a question whether or not she