wife and his child who appeal the decisions by the board of immigration appeals in the immigration judge to deny withholding of removal and relief under the convention against torture this would be cherry and his wife and his trial emigrated  forces for his participation in political opposition activities similar types of of abuses are well detailed in the united states state department country  human human rights report regarding armenia in fact the conclusion of that particular port was that the armenian government's he human rights who was poor as a result of these these abuses as well as continued threats against mr curie and safety mr kurian fears that if he's returned to armenia he will be similar appeals and immigration judges rulings under a substantial evidence standard the findings here in this case simply cannot meet that standard well let me answer me with something i am concerned about whether this testimony relating to his membership judge did raise however i contend that that that the evers credibility ruling that the that the judge made based on that particular issue was an error in our charge because it was based on however the in consensus he really lies in the opinion of the immigration judge on one hand the judge found mr kurian generally credible yet on the other hand he found certain portions of his testimony impossible fact that that not only a language barrier but just a general understanding for example one of the items that the immigration judge and the board of immigration peel points to is mr kucera and skid napping and  whether there was an arrest warrant or not quite frankly if anyone beyond you know the legal community or perhaps law enforcement even here in the united states probably doesn't even understand exactly what steps it would actually take to to to to create you know an arrest warrant to well there an arrest warrant existed so it it's not surprising that mr katrina also may have  go to the to the to the heart of why not if you claim to be actively involved in a pardon that leads to your persecution and you claim that that your activities in that party are critical to your claim of the file and you can't and you don't know the names of the top members of the party who like their titles isn't that something central to your claim that you would know if you were in organization is is quite fluid and as well i think that the heart of petitioners claims for the fact that he was kidnapped and thrown into the back of the back of a car he was detained interrogated and tortured by through to the heart of if we disagree with you that this is a minor inconsistency if we think that this is not a minor inconsistency is that enough to support the immigration judge's decision i don't of the organization and participated in political opposition activities and including a letter writing and and and talking with with other potential numbers chained threatened because of those particular activities told not to engage in those activities again and he was repeatedly tortured as well even after he left her media and came back and then came here yes your honor i think you cases like thomas and thomas you had a an instance where in the alley in which had made the claim that they put the immigration judge and the board i notice that they were seeking asylum based on particular issues based on whether or not they were particular everest credibility terminations it's it's very detailed there it's more than just an impossibility here it's the whole tenor of the testimony it's very thin testimony it's very exaggerated testimony an immigration judge warned him i think at least one occasion and perhaps too that you know hey petitioner you need to you need to be upfront and be very specific and not make these outlandish claims like oh they know that i'm in this court right now before you judge him i mean it was things like that that came out in th testimony that really well you also found fault because you can ascribe to what happened to the other people that were roughed up and kidnapped but you know how how is he supposed to know what happened others are used he's on a got the feeling just from the record that the man was somewhat uncomfortable with the language as well so that that could be the case that issue again was was not presented that there was any sort of interpretor issue that and then he was brought back in front of this this minister who read these charges to him again so there was there was i believe there is in the record some reference to or and least implicitly that there was a document that some i do not find that the responded has the credible witness and i do not find that some of his explanations are plausible now that's a shortcoming as expressed he doesn't find him credible here out of perhaps he hasn't made a credible witness and then he says therefore i find that he has failed in his burden to show my a clear probability and so on affirmative that decision that have a spreadable examination is made but there is a niche in here in which there's a difference between finding somebody incredible and rejecting everything they say and then saying well i'm frustrated and want to know here and therefore i find that he didn't prove it and there's a difference between failure proof and a finding of no credibility and our response has to quote it here is the states that the purpose of exhaustion is to give an administrative agency the opportunity to resolve the card controversy or correct its own errors before traditional intervention