transcript tells us that number two we have no idea for documents other than what was represented as facts documents that were sent to him and then we go through about fifteen to twenty pages of transcript a figure that is not the same amount as what was set forth in the application and at the end of that if you will both his examination and the cross that occurred we realized a number of things one no where in the record can we find the actual documents or anyone in that courtroom to know what documents he was actually looking at other than  he identified that there was an application sign an application he identified he had his notes and he identified that he had presumably the declaration that accompanied the application but he's that the it's seems that she's she's being brought in as you would in a civil case you have depositions that have been taken you want to make sure that your depositions contain all the information with regards to who was deposed and what was said and so forth and that you have a complete record we begin with the following and that is we're going to that's a statement about well what was it that well is but is is is that the is that the tests that were supposed to be used in this and a the officers notes it doesn't appear that we have but that's not all that extraordinary i mean all of your frequently have witnesses testifying about earlier conversations and almost never do they have a culinary they simply say what happened in the earlier conversation that is admissible evidence and do we have anything in the assessment that indicates that the officer swore at the interpreter so that he understood that the interpreter were to test would interpret correctly we don't have that in that assessment do we know that how he proceeded to place the applicant under oath we don't have that in the assessment and do we have any explanation with a little bit of the information that he's received during the asylum interview we have no way of making that determination as to that last part i'm not sure what the problem there is that the difficulty the reason the the i j a determine that your your client's credibility cannot be established or trusted was the inconsistency of the extent that he uses the application that's simply another source of inconsistency that's not a problem for for one of the i a has straight information has the applications before the i g directly immigration judge to find that the responded is not credible or the petitioner is not credible what you have is unless the asylum officer simply got the story completely wrong and major parts you have glaring discrepancies in terms of discrepancy and that's the key fact when the asylum officer testifies that at the asylum interview he heard one version and that version is not the same as appears in your client's testimony to the i j a or in the remember at all this particular interview number two he's looking at his notes and he's recognizing that his notes contain errors specifically as to the amounts of money or the amount of money it was paid in order to secure the release how trustworthy is now that assessment if we're going to look at on the one hand we're going to say look this is testament says this amount of time he was held but you've k was that in there well i guess it was so today we're supposed to now say well maybe that's what you know it's not us to say the issue for us is whether the there's substantial evidence to support the conclusion which the immigration judge reached some time ago an immigration judge is the one to reach the conclusion we're simply asking is there enough evidence to support the immigration judges conclusion and it doesn't appear that there is he's testified he was of the problem is not what he testified to because if he testified to us and was believed we have a different case the question is is there ample evidence or is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he's not credible i think that the we need to look at that transcript at the of the hearing where the officer testifies to make that determination because i think what happens is you el saying and i believe there are actually seven distinguishing features about this case there is no question as you acknowledged earlier that the i chase adverse credibility determination was premised upon the discrepanc between what the petitioner said to the asylum officer and what he said during the hearing those seven distinguishing features though from this case to judge a person's decision and saying is first we know that in this case the petitioner was in fact officer about his notes about their accuracy and about any potential discrepancy third the interview was conducted into tell me with a punjabi interpreter present that was brought by the petitioner fo the petitioner's attorney was present for the interview with the asylum officer and very significantly we don't have a summary here the i j a did not rely solely upon the summary assessment to refer but instead relied upon eleven pages of detailed notes kept by the asylum officer during this interview this petitioner was presented with the contradictions and given an opportunity to explain and the explanations were either implausible or they simply failed to explain the differences between the statements made to the asylum officer and the statements during the testimony and finally the inconsistency in this case were not just about day they were about critical issues that went to the heart but if you do shooters asylum claim the third of west whether or not he was held for a day and a half and beaten once or if he was held for four weeks and beaten five times was he arrested at his home and taken to the farmhouse or was he arrested at the farmhouse was he then taken straight to the police station and held for four weeks or was he returned to the farmhouse to conduct surveillance i think what we come away with particularly with that third arrest is a completely garbled series of events that's really hard to nail down and the i j a noted that it shares decision in this case as adopted by the b ira are supported by evidence in the record i don't believe any reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude differently and there was no abuse of discretion by the b ira in any of its decisions relative to the motion to reconsider or reopen i have a question for you that i think is not determinative from my evaluation of the case in front of us but it occurs to me that some of the difficulties that we're arguing about could be obviated where there a tape recording of the interview is a customary not to do tape recordings that are very simple to do of course and i understand from the asylum officer and this is also in the record in the testimony that they do it on a random basis and i agree it would make this case much easier if they had recorded i don't i don't think we'd be hearing this appeal if they're going to tape recording i mean there's a lot of effort going into this appeal or rather this petition for review that could have been obviated by the very simple mechanism of the tape petitioner slow down stop interrupting the question and allow the interpreter to keep up the war always looks a lot different for the generals than it does for the foot soldier and i would advise that this court to consider those transcripts those transcripts that you show each and every time that you have questions being asked that we have to go back and try to read i mean even if you read them in the english language you ask yourself could someone who is a native speaker and their language be saying what i'm reading in english i don't think so and it goes back to the motions that we thought of the second motion motion to reconsider her saying we don't have a certified court interpreters