confused or inconsistent when he testified about the nine hundred ninety one election cancellation page six of the petitioner supplemental opening brief cites the testimony that mr s in the record his testimony appears at pages one fifteen one sixteen i've argued then and i argue again that his testimony was completely consistent with both his declaration and the country condition documentation with which the judge seems to have taken administrative notice that the elections were canceled canceled two days before to help the immigration judge or the board excuse me the board found i'm not quite sure i understand then because he was asked a series of questions right ones a right all of them having to do with whether he participated in the election right and he manifested no confusion at all about whether all election  phoning or whether the election man at buckingham paine the whole deal and so the bottom line here is that he only manifest confusion when he gets to ninety one and says well i didn't participate then he changes yes i did participate and then he couldn't give any details about it so you've got several layers of confusion there what i would say that he was not confused until the immigration judge made him confused because he was quite sure that he didn't participate in the election because it was cancelled i understand that and i agree he was quite sure and then he said that's not a very good thing to be i'd better i better switch and say  it was only then that he realized the judge was talking about the campaign prior to that nobody had said the word campaign you understand the point i'm making always fire to the ass five different questions asked him whether he participated in the election he said yes and he answered the question as as we were all assuming him going to matt not that he participated by going to a ballot box and what kind of a did you participate in the election in india and this was hundred eighty nine when yes i did what did you do in this election i would sing for people to gather and i would tell people this and that what what other election did you participate and he answered it it's only when you get to ninety thought she wanted to know about the election and not about the campaign but after the election is a reasonable answer and there's not enough in this record to find that he was either making testimony or that he w to and two news articles in the record those articles appear on the record page four eighty eight and four ninety one now in reviewing those two newspaper articles the immigration judges conclusion simply it's incorrect the judge held and the board in this small area the board seem to uphold the immigration judges and now it's just about the inconsistency between the testimony and the evidence in the record but the judge has said that these news articles demonstrate that a a terrorist was identified and that a terrorist was in custody and if you read the article forty eight it doesn't say that a terrorist was identified and it doesn't say that a terrorist was in custody if you read the news article for ninety one it doesn't say that a terrorist was identified or that a terrorist was in custody and the only two issues that the board of immigration of appeals found were sufficient to up hold an adverse credibility determination thereby finding that mr singh was not eligible for asylum and we've already discussed in detail the campaign versus the election issue i believe that's insufficient on its own to uphold an adverse credibility determination was regard to the inconsistency between the testimony and the news articles and i think that both the any reviewing court in such a case would be able to look at the combination of the immigration judges opinion and a single member decision to understand the conclusions reached new to cation for those decisions accordingly this court has held repeatedly that when it's unclear whether or credibility determinations for clear error and i submit that it's very difficult to read one paragraph board decision as being a comprehensive decision on credibility grounds i think it's only fair to read that in the light of the i j a decision  turning out of the merits i think that there are a number of grounds upon which the eye gaze adverse credibility determination can be supported to that goes straight to the heart of the matter and i feature prominently in her very thorough written opinion the first is that  offered very general testimony about his political participation but was only able to provide anecdotal detailed evidence about that participation and there were several reasons for that informed ideas determination that his lack of detail  arose out of this political activity as you said i just don't buy it i just don't think you had that kind of political participation that would have led to these arrests with respect to the other two she said look if i believed you about the other four maybe this would be enough but i'm just left wondering whether or not you're telling me whether you're telling me the truth respect anything so she didn't say i believe everything you sad but i don't believe you were arrested she said i just i'm just not buying her story  was just shocked that this could come up and in those circumstances she said my my my belief upon observing you out of my hearing or testimony upon hearing your contradicting yourself about your participation in the ninety one election was that these events weren't real to you you hadn't participated in them they weren't when something that was a lived experience third i think it's also important in the i jake thought it was important that petitioner testified at you know about various elections which he had participated in each time that period and in those circumstances i submit that the i j a was perfectly reasonable in saying i don't believe your story with respect to your past political participation  you you know the first attorney that represented this gentleman before the court filed a brief in which he argued i j your immigration judge prejudiced i think kind of the points  of them or detract from from the law that that she was obligated to apply to say she just didn't buy it may have been because of the fact that this gentleman had been arrested and she found him not to be a person deserving of discretion but that's not what she found instead she went on this wild goose chase of of trying to find inconsistency is where they don't exist and i want to quote from the board decision on page four sustain a sweeping address credibility determination but you know the records week so will sustain it anyway that's not proper analysis because the next issue that they go to to determine the weakness of the record