during the testimony as they relate to the declarations and i'd like to address each one of them if i may as the court has some specific questions yeah i do have one or at least the evidence suggests that it wasn't it wasn't an accurate representation of a reason to want to come to the country you know there were two visa applications one of them was filed in two thousand by an agency that one has that one she says i didn't know what they said yes to the second one however and she appears to have filed she said that she was just later on said she was just trying to find a way to get into the country which is inconsistent with the application which is for another purpose so why is not something to cast doubt on her credibility well she was trying to there were actually a few testaments in regards to that you know on or some of the at some point she said that she was coming she wanted to come to the country and tour the country then on the visa application she indicated that she was coming for a wedding when that question was asked and that's that's that statement apparently was not true correct what she testified that she did was two different reasons you know she wanted to to the country and she want to come for the cousin's wedding or friend's wedding where we go back to the first one the first one so she's part of some performing group right it wasn't  she says i didn't say that the agency said who wrecked and she was the second one that says i'm coming to go to a wedding and she says but you admitted later i was just trying to get into the country so as to that second one seems to me to cast some doubt on your client's credibility doesn't when you say she wanted to get into the country she wanted to come to the country you know i not sure what you know the  not transcribed so i am not sure how exactly it was recorded by the officer and the asylum officer you know this is based on any other  statements or during the asylum interview or at the airport interview we don't know how good the translation was i don't know whether the the office and correctly but her you know what from what i can see because there were no question and answer written down you know completely it was just a short brief summaries so she basically said that she wanted to get in because she want the into the country because she wants to tour the country and also come for the wedding so this is a post real i d act case right correct so the inconsistency would have to go to the heart of th minor material like you get the date you get the number of the street address or whatever wrong and that shouldn't be substantial evidence but we've also said that even one inconsistency is enough to be once was a telephones with eight and she gives an explanation which doesn't really clarify which sequence of events is correct and and the i j and the b i know the discrepancy and and i guess i don't understand why that wouldn't be sufficient given that that's one of the key events in her in her explanation yes or no i will address that actual  the government attorney was addressing this issue by a comparing it to the declaration that it's on pages four sixty two through four sixty eight  statement she had the first statement was at six thirty one to six thirty three and that was the amended statement where she was trying to clear up some problems in the first statement correct correct because the first one was written by somebody who was not very fluent in aaron and that because there was no discrepancy between the declaration and her testimony because she testified that while she was working on the twenty ninth the night from twenty ninth every two first of march late she overheard the conversations on the phone before between the leaders of her party and ruby and then he came to the office physically and then there were a lot of exchanges during the testimony  those questions were asked and he she kept coming back coming back to the same answer i was there there were first conversation on the phone number of them and then afterwards  so the trial attorney asked questions whether they came together for some reason or the trial attorney understood that they came together she never testified to that you know i was trying to think these things line up and they didn't exactly line up so in her second written statement she said on the night of february twenty ninth the morning of march first european came to the office and her testimony and had a private conversation and that was when they asked for the financial  books and her testimony from november fifteenth zero zero do you came to your office at three pm on march first two thousand and eight and she says oh well he came two times so so and then she has a further explanation for they happened i didn't see have any way to make them line up i mean do you have now a specific chronology of exactly what happened or is going to i believe that she when she said she came fifth two times i think she meant because right after that and that was on the same page that i just mention she never was she said she corrected herself afterwards she said they were on the phone first and then he came in he didn't come twice she meant that they were there the first time and they were talking to him on the phone and then he came in later and that's it went through you know if you read all of the two pages from two sixty four through sixty six at the very end you know after she couldn't get the question you know she couldn't understand what the trial attorney was asking her so at the end when that question was they were on the phone they were they had phone conversation and then physically here i phone march first but that's contrary to what she's and her second statement but it's not you know in a few of the way she said and on the night of february twenty the way it was the way i read it is that when she was working late from twenty february twenty ninth to march first while working late at the air p offices are open came to the office and had private co sations so all three pm the next day but she said that that's not what she meant that he came that night you know it was she explained that to the to the judge and to the trial attorney but that he came later he was on the phone you know that night you know with the party leaders but he came later we've taken it you over your time but look if you and i'm sorry ends and i represent the attorney general of the united states this court should decline to disturb the board's decision because record evidence does not compel the conclusion that petitioner presented a credible claim for asylum withholding of remove all and cat protection let me ask you a sort of a global question here there are some in consistencies in various statements made by the petitioner but her story over time is pretty consistent she has got some of the details wrong and she's these minor consistencies together support the case and if so what's our what's our dividing line i know that's a broad question but one of the difficulties here is to use no sort of glaring smoking gun where you can say ah she said she was in our media one day and it turns out she was in moscow there's inconsistency yesterday descriptions of the events but there they are broadly consistent so how do we deal with a case like well your honor under the  and board consider the totality of the circumstances and rendering an adverse credibility determination as judge i could have mentioned earlier one inconsistency is enough and i would posit here that these inconsistencies went to material aspects of her claim which which one if we had the one is enough rule which one is enough here why i think the worst or i guess for lack of a better term the worst inconsistency is the discussion about when the opposition party leader came to meet with her party's leadership from the from the testimony and the different evidence presented we're not really sure one that happened in one telling of the story he came either late evening or early morning march first and was there from the evening to the morning on another tell telling there was a phone conversation between the party leadership on february twenty ninth and then he came on three pm on march first and then in another there was a evening meeting in person and then another meeting in person on march first and this is a you know a big a big part of a claim i mean this is the day that she allegedly witnessed all this financial corruption where one party was buying off the other party these are memorable events but the dates are roughly consistent i mean she says these events occurred on leap year mean your honor yes i would argue that they are it's just as i said this is a very important event to reclaim and just the fact that it's been sliding the shifting testimony is kind of been sliding around it's unclear exactly what happened and again you consider all these inconsisten of the circumstances and there are some other inconsistency she presented inconsistent evidence about when she first spoke on about witnessing election fraud we don't know if she did that the day after the election or several days after the election on march third  she was inconsistent about when she wrote a report or even if she did write a report did she write a letter was an oral report again when was that report was it the day after the election was it later on it on march third meeting again the inconsistency about when the party leadership came into the office her shifting claim about how many officers arrested her was it two or three there were also a lot of discrepancies statements about who treated her after she was released from detention she didn't ask you about that going back to these asylum interviews was that was there an armenian translator there according to the asylum officer there was there was a interpreter the petitioner said during her testimony before the immigration judge that she understood the interpreter there was also an interpreters monitor who again would have spoke armenian and monitored the situation their reliance on the asylum officers notes in this case asylum officer during the i think at the i guess not yet when they called the asylum officer during her merits hearing or one of the continued merits hearing she had the opportunity to cross examine her and did in fact cross examine her and i take it the siloam officer was testifying from her notes i believe that it's my understanding that she had her notes in front of her of the asylum that interview happened several years prior to the testimony before or a year or two prior to the testimony before the immigration judge and you know sometimes these dates become less significant and there's a big time gap between when the occurrence and when they have the asylum interview but in this case it was just a matter of a few months and sam right well my understanding was the asylum interview happened sometime in two thousand and ten and all of these events allegedly happened in two thousand and eight so there was not a huge gap in time between the two again getting back to the discrepancies about who treated her like i said that she initially reported it was a doctor and she later said it was a nurse and there's some inconsistent testimony about when she was treated was it once or twice and some of these these dates they kind of make make other things almost impossible to have happened like for example she testified that on march seventeenth she's released from detention or some of the evidence suggests that she was after being released from detention she was bed bound for ten days but this would conflict with her testimony that the police shot her business down on march twenty third she can't be in both places at the same time the other inconsistency is that really impacted her credibility as a witness worthy and consistencies about her prior visa applications i think the striking thing here is that when she was asked about her asylum interview with the asylum officer she denied applying for these two pieces after even being confronted with the visas themselves she still denied that these were hers and then later she admitted that she was concerned that they would negatively impact her asylum claim so i think these are big  important these are to go back to the second v z if you would you say visa indicates she wants to come to the country for what reason i believe the second visa said that she wanted to come to a wedding and i think the reason that this inconsistency is so important is when she testifies before the immigration judge and the context of her testimony she says i don't i didn't have any family here i don't have any friends here we have some direct family but we don't stay in touch with them and i have a father's friend and now i want to attend a wedding well that's what i wanted to ask because you're opponent said roughly he attended a wedding and and then also wanted to stay but i thought that the asylum that the that the evidence in this case was that there wasn't really a wedding at all well that that's that's the it could be inferred from her testimony i think that's the issue we don't we don't know and it's her burden of persuasion to prove that she's eligible for asylum or to prove that she is a credible witness and these kind of things cast on her veracity as a witness we really don't know why she wanted to come in two thousand and four was it to sightsee was it to see her cousin fighting i mean she just stated that she didn't have any direct family or any family that she was close to in the united states so it's kind of confusing and like i said it's her burden to prove that she's a credible witness your honour's if you don't have any further questions police officer three police officers you know she testified credibly and consistent with the declarations that it was three police officers then it was the doctor the nurse another doctor who treated her and  there was there was no reason why she would lie about it she didn't know they had a medical report so it's not that she wanted to provide medical report to show that there was a doctor you know there was no reason for that  fraud and the third time it was when she generally talked about was what was going on you know within the leadership on march third after what events took place on twenty ninth and the first and you have to