birth record which i understand her to say is used to obtain the passport now that key to me because the she's trying to state she the immigration judge is not convinced that power is who she says she is not that to me kind of struck me hard because despite them all the other inconsistency exchange i don't know who you are i don't know who you are but she bases it on the well and this too should be a key statements or i think what your argument would be then we have to send it back because she made it a critical where i mean i know but this is fairly critical three fish you piers that are on her identity and the other things and it's sort of the basis that runs through her decision oh you may do so says on the application that she was quote insulted and then there's a little parent that a cover says something like more details will be supplied later now why is that different from are is more important to me than a lot of things in here because certainly if we don't know who this person is why going to offer them asylum that's key when she says the idea when i look at your birth certificate and  you said that this was was given to your passport this is the basis because i'm doubting these documents are through to for me to doubt your identity but is she saying i just don't really tried to help her out by looking at the collateral documents and collateral issues to try to find things that would bolster her case and instead i found things that did not alter her case she did not find that this was a this this was i believe the i to be was a serious issue in this case and that therefore it was it was a problem i don't think it's necessarily an issue that should cause the case to be remanded based on the entire the i g has this enormous litany of extremely central husband feel the cooperate that he found floating in the river was mentioned in the internet corporation and even though the i j a attempted to get her to testify about that at the trial she failed to do so she wouldn't do that it was another example of an extreme with something extremely central to her supported by the record there is no basis for asylum in this case there is no nexus between the rape based on the description of the inner and to enter testimony or anywhere else and any protective grounds the government the police conducted a sweep a legitimate sweep based on a kidnapping that have taken place they went to locations where they had previously found people they thought were bad and rounded everybody up including this is mrs coward and whether or not they were guarded she was bad it wasn't singling out her they picked her up she watched her husband being abused she herself was of used to some extent by the police and then she was taken into another room and rate all they said to her was that they picked her up because of this kidnapping and that they thought and they mention the word scoundrel throughout is absolutely complete support for the i g is finding that there's no evidence here of any religion connection and there's no evidence of any political connection here there's no evidence that you know they were trying to terrorize her or terrorize her husband or others and there's no evidence of a religious or political connection now the petitioner would have you believe that because there's no evidence at all of anything therefore the court should infer that that must be because of her role religion or politics and that's simply false the evidence is they were conducting a legitimate sweep a picture up for that reason she was in their custody and because these there she's in their custody the police have a history regardless of your religion or regardless of your politics of extorting money from people let me let me ask you sort of isn't we we may and for may do that we're also you can approach the asylum question to begin with assuming their testimony was credible and you don't have to assume that her statement that she subjectively fears returning is credible but assuming that her testimony credible the only incident that you have to look to is this single one day arrest based not on her identity but the fact that she was present at a location in which she was raped and based on this court's case law i cited the court in the  the fact that you're raped doesn't mean that you've been persecuted and if you look at his allies like arise ally secularized was a person who was picked up and it was exported from and there just wasn't any nexus between that and a protected ground and that's exactly what the judge found in this that she had political activity and everything in the record says that she was never harmed as a result of her husband's political activity everything in the record there is nothing in the record that says that she was ever harmed well based on how do you if you're for are you how would you interpret the facts given you're going to take her story for what it is that they were both picked up together they were both by the police station she observed what was going on with the husband and was fourth observed that insulted if you will and then with brought into another room and r should they were just harassing her because she was picked up not because of who she was but by the fact that she was in a particular location the fact that they did this in front of her was based in something to him in front of her did something to him  her in front of him was part of their investigation that part doesn't add up to her and that part doesn't amount to persecution or orders or that they were doing this because they want to because when the confessed and by having the wife there petitioner in the case the only thing that potentially lost a prosecution is this rape and there's no evidence that either the explosion or the rape were remotely associated with anything political her or her husband's thank you c record an obviously in this car with a fifth grade education she says she's a witness and she can only ask answer the questions that approach her and if you look at questions what did they do i was raped did they beat you and that answers indiscernible how long were you held in police custody on the twenty seventh i was released they didn't ask for any more detail if they wanted more detail they need to ask if you can hold it against you if you don't ask for this on account of issue it's simply not true that there's no evidence in the record indicating that it was the arrest was politically motivated  the government responded to those complaints by releasing people from their custody but on pages eighty eight eighty nine of the administrative record miss carr says they were releasing them and then a few days later immediately rearresting them the same people that they had released and she identifies three particular people aside from her husband that were released in response to these demands spend a few days and freedom and then rearrested and then her husband twenty days after he was released he's sick you can barely get out of that and then the police come in and they arrest him and his wife accuse them of kidnapping and they say that the kidnapping was caused was was perpetrated by one of the members that's a quote one of the members of a colleague that's direct evidence that the arrest was politically motivated doesn't get much better than that thank