as the case of a first he in a very cookie cutter boilerplate fashion stated that the petitioners demeanor may be problematic but he failed to specifically point to anything in the record to show that the petitioners demeanor was anything but credible and secondly the eyes she made in negative inference from the fact that the petitioner could recall the countries from know under our current cases you're aware of discrepancy regarding membership but and a persecuted group or in this case a terrorist group goes to the essence of the asylum claim what is what is there on the record that shows that the i j a just missed out on your client's position with respect to whether the young student was killed by the police or killed by some that although we know was very much inconsistent he was there with them he said he was coerced but would you not agree that that that really goes to  i agree that the petitioner did make a mistake in his declaration by stating that it was the police who killed mr students and then later on we direct he admitted that he that was an error that he failed to correct and he was correcting it now that you know it was the shining path guerrillas who he thinks that he could not be sure were the reason for the death if it does he does admit does he not that he was a demonstration at the same thing that sent that all i mean else that was protesting right right but he characterized it in and a way that showed that he was not a willing participant i think that he explained consistently his role and that was not a willing participant if i didn't really thought that he was in willing participant that he would have applied the terrorist bar against this petition but he didn't do that so that shows that he did not truly feel that this petitioner was a willing participant the district testimony clearly showed on the first incident of the demonstration that the terrorists came to the cafeteria area and four story encouraged the students to protest against president dobbs and the way he described it was that they were encouraged to do so in a peaceful way as the student that he did so because he thought it would be nonviolent but the moment that he saw that actually the terrorists did not have such peaceful intentions but had arms he realized he did now want to participate in t hard to find things in your now good morning me please the court the immigration judges address credibility findings were in fact supported by specific cogent reasons and petitioners not shown compelling reason to disregard or to find otherwise therefore the court should uphold that adverse credibility determination what we have here is an evolving story we start with the asylum petition which was kind of bare correspondence is all right but what is interesting is there was nothing in the asylum petition about the death of his cousin samuel will chairs which according to his declaration and a subsequent testimony is which was four years later by the way which is what caused him to actually leave peru if he is to be believed in his declaration he specifically stated that he cooperated wi second protest about that when he got into court and he realized that that was problematic because he had indicated that he was cooperating with the shining path and as the immigration judge found why would shining path persecute you if you were cooperating with you with them if they perceived that you were in fact a member in support of them that's when his testimony began to change for instance in the declaration there is dangerous this group is nephew wasn't cooperation in the declaration he states i rallied the students in conjunction with shining path because i was a student leader as he runs into problems in his direct examination in this cross examination it then changes to i did it under duress i was coerced he talks in a declaration is categorical that the police shot a roscoe and as he gets going into his testimony he goes back and forth between the police shot of asco know what was the shining path a shot of asco i was standing next to a rascal i don't know who shot a rascal but i believe it was the shining path and like my opponent is correct he did say because of asco was a passive supporter of the shining path organization who were upset with him first he says though they hated then he changed it to well maybe they didn't like a roscoe all this is in response to the questions well wait a minute you claimed that you organized the june second one thousand nine hundred eighty demonstration against the police because they shot  rascal now you telling us you didn't believe the police shot of roscoe you believe shining path shot of roscoe why then would you org not organize this protest against the police if in fact you believed it was shining path then the testimony shifts again well i don't know i can't be sure who shot it i was quite worst now on top of all those problems there's one other which is not specifically mentioned by the army and we fought pitched battles against shining path and i received terroristic threats at that time he attributes part of his persecution to that only service that never comes  again in the declaration although he mentions he served in the army in his testimony he never again in any way attribute anything that happened to him based on his army service it has totally changed the real issue becomes then how does this fit in with the rest of his testimony if shining path knew that he was in the army they dispute terroristic threats against him because he was opposed to them why now all of a sudden on december student vice president in july of eighty eight the president of the student organization october and within two months a very short period of time before he said any time to exercise authority shining path has targeted him which is a very short period story implausible but more importantly this has testifies that at the very time he was in the university he had three siblings in the university as well they were all together study claims that the threats against him were we will kill you and we will kill your family if you don't cooperate yet nothing there was never a threat to any of us siblings nothing ever happened in the of his siblings when asked about this he said well they were they weren't aware of the siblings that doesn't square with the country reports and everything else about the intelligence the saying you know who the g two that shining path would have had on him if they're making these threats against hispanics surely something would happen if he stopped cooperating with them which is what he said he did and yet nothing the judge also pointed out that after he left which is allegedly after the death of his cousin his family always pays parents in these five or six siblings have continued to live in lima peru totally on molested by the shining path very inconsistent with his story that they're out to get me they threaten my family if i don't cooperate with the judge you on are just going to ask you what under the current situation which is part of what we would be dealing with here is that the government belief and because he did not make a credible claim and because he did not support it with evidence of cooperation of these threats he had some evidence that he was signed to student present at once he reported a robbery but none of that the threatening letters or anything else that he says he received or his family received were ever introduced into evidence when the judge considered all that along with the fact that his family continues to  first of all that i have to engage in speculation to assume that the petitioner who had been president of the student union for two to three months before he was first attacked and to find union and then was made president would not have participated and taken any action on behalf of the student union at that point he marry me very well now but again he was not questioned further about that you know to speculate it would be unfair and not supported what is your what is your position with respect to his initial cry to come to the united states through some of the central american countries  where the applicants fly from the country prosecution really should not have any bearing on the i'm not focusing on that i'm talking about the credibility is it your position that he was never asked a direct question be held against him when he submitted a second declaration you know three with the help of counsel i believe he did discuss some portions of that again not not being  and thank you very much both of you for your presentations to the case of versus me casey is submitted also the case of wilkes versus electronic data systems corporation has been submitted on and when it's our once wink is that correct whenever you're ready you can come to the podium and begin and let me know if you want to reserve any time