reopening sense the reopening of star material is quite questionable in regard to either the facts of this case or whether it's just old material so unless  the court disagrees with me in that regard i'll proceed with a few comments about the the denial of the asylum claim itself the core incident in this case that the fact finder focused on and that seemed to occupy the center of the claim of the one nine hundred ninety two incident in which and his wife among others participated in a demonstration and were detained for a few weeks and of used the fact finder  because the fact finder said that it lacks sufficient detail and therefore he found it unbelievable and implausible and further undercut by his actions  some year to fourteen months thereafter the fact finders that to the satisfaction of the court he was not satisfied with the evidence this is the  the prison escape and then reporting for work yes that's within the whole event the start of the course with the detention the arrest and detention that is what we see as the the real issue in the case is an immigration judge under any obligation to provide with the fact finder the immigration judge finds the story very carefully and i simply find the story which is at the heart of the point to the  in the best case of course the fact finder would give particular reasons for the doubt in this case it was somewhat the opposite of that because what he said was it just didn't have the details that i the fact finder want it was to in other words conclusory or summary and it's recitation that is what i understand it to be and that is the that is the finding of course it would have been it would have been better if examples had been proffered but that is not the case here what do you mean i don't understand is not the case here are you saying that this record shows he just said that and he didn't or any didn't say anything  the findings that the finding and that regard in the record is set to twenty five and to twenty eight to thirty and it's also on to twenty seven improbable are you suggesting there's something more he should have done i don't get your response to the question and judge hopkins square with that well i just want to know your position my position  yes the question judge hawkins was do yes go into detail i think it from your response was that he did not go into detail and i'm wondering why this isn't detail i just want to know your position my position was that he can always include something else in this case because he says it's lacking in something what there's not a lot more he could say other than to give examples of what's lacking that's my point ok opinion and there's avarice credibility issues the immigration judge says i don't believe this person right here it's pretty clear that the immigration judge did believe the petitioners  talking about demeanor was credible and so forth and then in this language the court reluctantly concludes that the account is not sufficiently detailed i agree i can't dispute that that that is what transpired yes but it is the fact if you believe someone and they say well there but their account is just doesn't detailed enough so i don't think i can believe them and it's to me it's internally believability finding in regard to aspects of the claim and that's what this is and yes it is unusual  government the record indicates in regard to the newly proffered material that the party of the petitioner and his patron is now the ruling party of the country and that sure the particle is the president and that his party is now the largest political party in the country and he was elected in a free  ok would you like to tell us anything more