supporter of v m e k the board then erred in failing to recognize that he is entitled to defer deferral of deportation under the convention against torture the country reports that are in the record make very clear that persons person what the record shows is that persons who are deported and this is both from our state department's country ports and also from the record issued by the embassy every run through their office in the embassy in pakistan here the that the government would be able to identify him as a member of any state in the board's decision age thirty to the ministry of record so the question is since there they've been able to identify him as in the case of porter is he going to be subjected to torture and the country reports by the state department make clear that there is widespread insistence systemic torture of political dissidents and in particular the state reports and this goes from the state reports that are in the record from ninety seven all the way up to two thousand and three board errors and over relying on adverse credibility findings in failing to take into consider country conditions that are in the record that demonstrate that regardless of whether he's a credible individual he will be subjected to torture  records support a finding that he did so with it funds raised funds for this organization and knew of in any case a house the board tonight then make an else of whether those facts in and of themselves demonstrate that he is a danger to the united states rather hand the board recognized that mr as being in a confidential informant was not a trustworthy individual he had a long history of immigration fraud and criminal record then alas the board relied on this testimony finding at the time of his deposition he had little to lose by testifying truthfully but this is not the case when he was testifying not only was he receiving thousands of dollars for spark aeration but contrary to the surgeon of the government attorney before the immigration judge he was also being processed for question on that please if you're saying substantial evidence in the record doesn't support the finding and this one witness testimony supporting the finding and i  i understand what you're saying is as a matter of law the immigration judge could not read it that testimony as a matter of law like it totally outside the discretion of the fact finder career what i'm saying is that certainly the immigration judge is in a position to make credibility findings and the reviewing court does not disturb those those findings of credibility regarding the witness supporter and as the me answer i haven't seen him go attend it but he was talking about it perhaps in new york where he was a reporter where he was you know question he told you answer i don't know what he was doing there did he ever tell you that he did fundraising for the any kid i don't remember i don't remember but he told me he was recruit recruiting going to one of the thailand i believe with any kid so something regarding that i remember but i don't remember what he is doing he told you that he recruited for the no evidence of any fund raising or any recruiting in the government's witness the special agent in charge of the investigation again you're saying there is no evidence of recruiting but the that you're right there is some evidence if regardless of its level credibility or whether it's can be contradicted if you make that assertion but i guess the point is even looking at assertion he's just saying i remember that he said something about recruiting thailand and then when you look back at the transcript that he refers to the transcript makes clear that someone who attempted to recruit him i think it's noteworthy that the government's agent the special agent in charge of the investigation and knowledge in the removal proceedings that there was no evidence of any a lawful contact and that means no evidence of recruiting or soliciting funds or fundraising those are all unlawful activities punished by the federal was regarding terrorism  this is the very conduct at issue here there is no allegations that those demonstrations were threatening violence or in any way a lawful in fact a titian with thousands of other individuals across the united states gathered together side by side with united states senators and congress are factual determination but under the section determining judicial review of section two forty two this court isn't power to make those factual determination i'm concerned about the jurisdiction stripping discretionary applications so withholding in their applications for convention is torture are discretionary and moreover it explicitly their lives of political asylum applications so this court does have jurisdiction to review the factual  states but we know that the record doesn't contain one of these press reports contain his name or any way identify him and two that when he returns the government will have his travel documents there's nothing in the record that  asylum officers there was lying to the immigration judge there was fraudulently obtaining a work permit based on friday on documentation virtually every contact the mr husseini had from his arrival in this country and identify him as a member of the m b can i don't believe that the country reports the greste the issue of whether mr hosseini or anyone else will be identified as a member of an opposition group based on terrorist organization that he knows has killed americans in knows what its goals are and we know that he knows much about it because we know he had access to the state house we know that he recruited and i can address that issue report at seventy six to seven eighty seven but he's a strong supporter involved in fundraising had access to a safe house mr hussein himself testifies that for five to fourteen and for ninety one to ninety two for this court to deny the portions of petition for review dealing with asylum and dealing with adjustment in addition to that when you reach the the terrorism bars as we've just discussed it's very clear what his involvement was in that it falls under two twelve so there's there's both a basis for denying the petition with regard to asylum and adjustment on and kept on the terrorism bars and respondents say the fisher claim that he would be identified is only based upon is unsupported testimony and that's not correct as we pointed out not only did the united state department country ports show that they will file interrogate him immigration and naturalization service send a copy of all court documents including all the charges in court orders so clearly the government of iran is laid out that they are going to be looking for the immigration paperwork of the country uni in this remove procedure for tyshan proceedings and i'd say that is supported by the country reports and moreover that's what the board of immigration found the board of immigration appeals pointed out that the government would be able to identify him and that's the decision  certainly if you presented a risk to the security united states that's something that the government would have challenges upon allowing him to route the release during that time i also want to find follow up quickly on the question regarding the factual findings and whether  question of all or simply a question of fact and i guess to clarify my earlier question in applying the factual findings to make a determination whether someone is inadmissible or deportable is where you have your question of why so while we're looking at the factual findings those factual findings have to be applied to the statute section two twelve and also at two thirty seven and that's where you have your questionable in finally the government now seeks to provide the announcer the rationale for the board's decision