for political asylum and withholding over mobile base in the following two reasons first the at first credibility finding made by the immigration judge is not supported by substantial evidence and second the government was unable to rebut the presumption o is in substantial evidence to the fir to his you terminations the first discrepancy lies with the testimony that petitioner provided at the hearing regarding the second incident when he was attacked his testimony was that it was attacked with hockey sticks and other sticks according to his testimony yet the notes at the credible fear interview made by the officer who conducted that interview provide that the petitioner was actually cut with knives and there is a reference in the notes that provide for that  here i can offer at least five reasons about why this is insufficient to defer to the immigration judge is finding first of all the asylum application which follow the credible fear interview does not provide that he was actually cut with knives during that second incident when asked about it at the hearing he said i never told the officer that having come with knives and fact he said i told that i had been caught with knives during the third incident which then prompted the petitioner to flee but more importantly your honor if you look at the summary report for the credible fair interview the summer of the interview provides that petitioner was actually cut with knives during the third incident and makes absolutely no reference to any cut with knives during the second attack and you can find that page shot at one thirty in the record where the officer provides a summary regarding the events described by petition and certainly there is a discrepancy between that summary and the notes that the officer made there's an inconsistency there and that particular information was not included in the sum i've argued your honor that the officer if the judge was going to rely on that information should have come in to testify and explain why his summary of the events doesn't include a stabbing incident during that second attack and why the notes do in fact provide for that petitioner us admitted at the interview at the hearing that perhaps the officer misunderstood we had when  what petitioner sat at the credible fear interview since even the notes provided by the credible fear interview officer are conflicting the worksheet does not correspond with the notes that were taken or not and i believe that that is very very important to know also petitioner never signed the notes that were made by the interviewing officer he never adopted those notes as a result in certain cases the officer makes notes it me petitioner the individual leader s the whether a declaration or statement affirming that the information set forth the rain is true and correct no such statement was made here by petitioner regarding the veracity of those that were taken by the officer during the interview that was conducted or the point which i also very important is that the failure to mention the stabbing incident not just during the hearing but also in the asylum application or that's also part of the record is that that figure doesn't enhance petitioners climb if anything it minimizes the claim because there's a difference between being attacked with sticks and being attacked with knives and there is a decision by this court that says that those discrepancies that do not boast or a claim for asylum certainly not be used to find a person and that is a difference between testimony and the letter that was submitted by petitioner himself regarding his whims petition to testify that in addition to the other injuries he suffered with more importantly that they tried to cut his hands and also that any asylum application that is on was broken the medical letter makes references to various injuries a broken nose a nose bleed bruising but it also says that there were queried this injuries made petition but i submit that missing information in that letter is insufficient to defer to an adverse credibility finding that's one aspect of it and the other aspect which i think is also very important is that the judge mis understood the letter say is that severe injuries grievous injuries were caused with blunt weapons there is a huge distinction between severe injuries and bruises in this case unfortunately the severe injuries are would for the simple work the case but nevertheless it's also not the type of evidence that will lead to this court to find that there is substantial evidence to find petitioner incredible didn't the you know your client cleaned in one of the incidents there was an attempt to cut off his hands that was the third is that your honor yes and there were some medical information about that yes or no following that there was there was a letter submitted by petitioner regarding that and the unfortunately the letter  i'm imagining the ideal perfectly neutral immigration judge not disposed one way or the other and there are two of these imaginary people one of them could look at just what i've described that is really they tried to cut off my hands medical evidence no indication of cuts and say well maybe the doctor just left it out maybe it was just left out of the description where is another perfectly reasonable trier of fact would look at that and say the fact that th is a reasonable conclusion to be reached given this court in a separate context has dealt with that initial start with my question yes and that wouldn't either conclusion be reasonable and i do not believe that simply because certain information was left out of the letter that that is sufficient to find the petitioner was not credible when the immigration judge noted that he was reluctant to find that he was incredible and when he noted that petition had otherwise testify in a straightforward matter when this is the only basis to find that the person is not credible given that the other reason i believe can be dispelled quite easily when this is the only reason i submit to the court that no it is unreasonable to basically find that never suggested below with a blunt instrument that don't like it and as your honor pointed out a reasonable person is not required to read a doctor's note that says obviously injuries caused by blunt instruments are injuries that are caused thinks he's in danger and he will say anything that he thinks will get him prevent him from having to go back to bangladesh but that doesn't qualify him for asylum and it certainly doesn't make him credible the ad which credibility is certainly supported in the record by very popular which he testified to and he's a good communicator he knows what he has to say to succeed and he is but he's not done so consistently right there for that first credit weapons and swelling in nature and i'm serious yes but you have to believe that this is actually a doctor's report of a medical condition which existed because we don't believe him because he submitted his willingness to lie his story of the injuries is completely different from a medical report how can we credit fully credit the medical report when it doesn't really many individual good end of this country i see while i have a few more minutes regarding change believe over time our progress here alison thank you your honor i do appreciate the time thank you thank you also i for their argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision