petition and remand for the proceedings are consistent with that i would think so based on my reading of the case all you would remain and did and the judge would the v a wouldn't very conflict between ninth circuit law  don't i don't think there is but i apologise yes or to them well there actually might be two issues one might be an exercise of discretion correct but wouldn't the other issue be whether the well your honor based on ventura following venture i guess the courts can decide it in this case because it is not the first time that issue is presented in front of the court the government basically the government had its chance to present their rebuttal evidence at the time of the merits hearing and that's the only opportunity the trial attorney has given to present rebuttal evidence for this so this court can decide if the presumption  evidence the only evidence is the profile your honor and the profile has dealt with general issues dealing with individuals who speak armenian or who have armenian spouses however it does not deal with the specific facts of petitioners case where an individual spoke armenian and had armenian family members but nevertheless was persecuted because of his mixed ethnicity it is contradicted by the specific facts of petitioners case the report was published in september of one nine hundred ninety eight but the shinners last instance where he was detained and beaten by the police officers to the point of unconsciousness occurred in february of one nine hundred ninety nine after this report was published over your honour's there is objective information in the record the country reports on human rights practices by the state department f ninety which states that as a result of protracted you're going to conflict there is no significant others every minority and the several hundred as varies or persons of mixed as every heritage still living in the country maintain a low profile of societal discrimination furthermore  the conflict is far from over there may be a ceasefire but the conflict is far from over and as this court has stated the evidence first of all it needs to be a profound second it needs to be on an individual basis and rebut the specific facts introduced by p country conditions and are a good source of knowledge and expertise for discerning what is going on in a particular country at a given time that's the direct answer to your question your honor but in terms of what the agency found meaning what the immigration judge determined to the case here even though she didn't specifically make an adverse credibility finding their worst several issues of concern and introspection noted throughout her decisions and while that may not necessarily indicate that it was an adverse credibility determination she did know that when you look at the determine the decision as a whole that all of these various inconsistencies are concerns that she cited resulted in her not being able to determine applied but we have to take his testimony as we will correct china and he testified that he was beaten twice he was put in the statute specifically states that it's not in order to demonstrate eligibility for asylum it's not sufficient just to say that i suffered harm while i was in the country that i came from what they also have to establish is that there were harms on account of one of the five star surely protected ground specified in the statute in this case i think some of the concerns and the immigration judge specifically noted i believe it was on page forty six of the  well yes i believe that he is of mixed a very armenian heritage but i think the next question is what was he harmed or experiences that he alleges was that on account of the fact that he was up for was he was the spark i don't believe it was that definitive i think part of that question she had went to this issue of not knowing what to believe given the evidence before her given the testimony and  given some of that documentary evidence that might have been in the record i think she looked at it and said i don't know that's what he alleges he testifies those who testifies that fly don't know what to believe and the statute i think clearly places the burden of proof on the respon in the and again given the statute the standard of review which would apply in this case and that is the substantial evidence standard of review meaning that the agency's findings as facts are conclusive unless any reasonable educator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary so the fact that other reviewers looking at the same evidence may have determined that a different way or come to a different conclusion is not sufficient under that standard restaurant or the pressure on her and that a reasonable adjudicator looking at the evidence and the records would be complete it would be compelled to go the other way given the evidence that would be what would be required to overturn  case that that standard has that stand that hasn't been done that has not been demonstrated by the petitioner that in fact looking at the evidence and considering the concerns cited by the agency in this case that that would not presented and again tonight his application so there have been multiple instances in which the petitioner in this case has been able to present his case and has been unable to sustain his right not demonstrating eligibility for asylum in each of those cases court stated in the carmen molina that because of dieties finding that petitioner was credible this on trick contradicts testimony must be accepted as true the judge cannot speculate what is true what is not true with regard to whether or not he was in fact  spy the government itself concedes in a brief it doesn't matter if he was a spy or not it's the reason for the persecution that matters petitioners mother was beaten to death and one hundred ninety two petitioners brothers leg was broken none of his family remains in armenia they were all accrues accusing turks petitioner testifies in his statement and orally that he was told he was a spy and a turk because of his muslim faith and would be killed if he does not leave armenia furthermore he late states later on that he was told why have you not laugh you must be a traitor if you haven't left armenia and your honour's i think at least at the very least which i would argue it's not even that there is makes motives and part of it is mixed as armenian as area in a city second government states how many reviews there's been of the case they issues are not how many reviews there's been i actually think we have concerns with whether or not the vi streamlined this case too quickly here on earth the issue in this case is whether or not given the past persecution suffered by petitioner the presumption has been rebutted the objective evidence the subjective evidence of the specific facts once again the report being written prior to the last incident a persecution indicates that the presumption has not been rebutted and finally your honour's the inconsistency quote unquote cited by the immigration judge where the fact that this year lived for a few months in armenia before coming here in hiding and stated that if you were to return he would have to register and be persecuted there is a clear case law on this in this circuit that that is not a reason to deny the case dates there was a minor inconsistency as the dates in the witness's testimony everything else was consistent word for word directly with the petition