morning your honour's and please the court a name is ronald d ritchie i'm here on behalf of the petitioner and i've reserved a few minutes for rebuff for forego a recess attention of the facts and i believe basically i have two primary arguments this morning one is st we believe that the petitioner was generally credible as correcting found by st asylum officer and then subsequently by the st immigration judge and the immigration judge made that determination in the only after several things one the judge had had the of the nd immigration judges adverse credibility germination was not supported by the evidence by substantial evidence throughout the brief and not even have didn't have an opportunity to observe the response the petitioners demeanor and candor he didn't have an opportunity day even careering her about any perceived inconsistent se or give her the opportunity to provide that that those are requirements he didn't and in fact to the contrary in violation of her constitutional due process rights both the nd immigration judge and the board questioned her credibility without considering all those final basic required elements necessary to formulate a proper credibility finding  board in the immigration judge to not look at the totality of the circumstances part of the problem is we don't know what the board considered if it considered a date that doesn't tell us there's no analysis from the board so your argument is that it was no immigration judge to not permit the petitioner to to a testify or to explain any perceived in consistencies but it's it's it's discussed throughout the brief in the issues raised that that there was not substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility finding  believe that that they have exhaust the remedies and went up to the board the board knew what issues where that they knew about that the one of the primary issues being raised was was adverse credibility finding by the  judge supported by substantial evidence and they basically just affirmed immigration judge without giving the city kind of analysis  you know a significant side note i want to point out as i hope that i'm not offended in the washington redskins fans in my example but in the present case the board was like the current redskins team they just punt the well it's kind of hard to say because we don't know analysis or we don't know what the board member considered an issue in the single member decision but definitely it appears that they did that they did not consider this whole issue about the adverse credibility finding by the nd judge which was contrary to the initial judge's findings and the siloam officers finding and so there is already has created  dispute if you will between different judges and from the side of my because the petitioner keeps saying different things to different courts well i'm not i'm not sure given the opportunity the country of the petitioner a lot's been happy in last few years but whether she was arrested or not while she was in cameroon didn't change she either was or wasn't and  that is one thing she was in detention for six or seven months leading up to the time of her here and she had traveled from cameroon she had been through through a lot she was isolated she had no family she had no support  mental state was not what it was six years later when she had been now been free been able to reflect on things and you know have had time to fully stabilize emotionally and  judge the nd one had an obligation once he determined in his mind that there were in consistencies he should've provide an opportunity for the petition to discuss those two to respond to those two did too so that he could determine whether she had a reasonable explanation a possible explanation true but i'll review arises from the   raf she could not do this present case the board another addressed the nd immigration judges the st credibility finding nor did it offer any specific closure reasons for its disbelief the immigration judge and a case that he will that that's the way things will proceed and then there's a question you know will you issue a written decision of the immigration judge says yes and there's no objection to that so it's w t he does raise an adverse credibility concern and his appeal to the board but that adverse credibility guess what his adverse credibility argument is card disconnected it and then got another person's phone and then lost out there's no attempt to to make these consistent there's no attempt to address the argument with regard to  october and later she says that the only claim that she does make with regard to specific average credibility finding has to do with her new statement that she was detained so that she never raised in her initial thank you in and you know based on that i would argue that throughout the petitioners agreed to the board it does address without specific you know using certain language but damned definitely showing that the petitioner believes that the adverse credibility finding by the immigration judge was improper for multiple judge had not yet received her affidavit he had not yet received this significant substantial country reports and other independent privative evidence once the judge had received that documentation that evidence conceivably the judge reviewed all of it and the judge should have given at that point if the judge if it raised any inconsistent caesar proceeding consists of judges mind he should've schedule hearing brought the petitioner in before him and said i have these concerns i have these perceived in consistencies address and if in it and then gone from there but the judge never allowed that he just issued a decision senate up to the board and that was that was it so we we believe that that was not fair is fun billy unfair how she was treated in this situation