in this case we had a mr simonyan who speaks no english whatsoever appearing without counsel in front of the immigration and immigration judge and here the immigration judge provided no notice that there would be any kind of discretionary decision about the decision about granting asylum well he only noticed that the court the judge provided was that he needed to prove eligibility for statutory asylum and he did that in fact he did that so well that the judge found on page seventy four of the record that he had established not only a well founded fear has in and released and in eggman the court has been very specific in saying that when you're talking about pro se alien who doesn't speak the language you have the judge has a duty to assist proceedings and also to make an appropriate choice regarding regarding this instance of counsel now the judge was required to do it to provide that guidance in order to make a vow to make a reasonable two of the record i do not want you to be under the mistaken belief that you can return later with a parent attorney later he told him if you proceed on your own if you change your mind late and get an attorney it might be too late then when he gave the instructions regarding the right to appeal on page one forty one of the record the judge told him if you think my decision is wrong in not granting you asylum as a matter of discretion you can can exercise jurisdiction where a failure to do so would result in manifest injustice now this man was given very improper instruction to regarding his regarding what he needed to prove what and what his right so you can give you can ask are you sure you want to waive counsel all you want but until you tell him and here's what you need to do to get there to make that decision it's a meaningless inquiry well now without a lawyer  proved that he was entitle to every relief that he saw on the law and only failed in achieving discretionary really a lawyer couldn't have done better adverse credibility determination nothing else except except for one thing the judge didn't find to be able to be not credible the judge found you to be consistent one credible counsel why did the judge  written in another language before he escaped from prison a shell and then he said that he found inconsistency based on i think is on the statements at the that it's not only to favor through to say what to tell the american authorities in the foreign country but it was it was what he testified to in the hearing he found he was inconsistent and and lacking in credibility because of the contradictions in the very proceedings that are current recurring in the u s now i think that what happened here and you correct me if i'm wrong simonyan with regard to his right to counsel and and not only gave adequate notice but received several knowing and voluntary waivers of that right he gave him a list of the organizations of pro bono work in his ations asked if he wanted to go forward on his own these are all in the supplementary brief one thousand and twenty and in the administrative record at eighty one and ninety two and he finally accepted the waiver of mr simonyan then warn him of the consequences of not hiring  went forward on his own told me he could change his mind again if you wanted to and then gave him ten months essentially to prepare his case during which time of mr sloan you had ever exhibited any interest in having an attorney which he never did he could have hired an attorney  verbalized it and he gave knowing waivers to knowing involuntary waivers to the judge in this case and the government would also posit that even if he had been denied rights council which we don't believe this true here there isn't any prejudice in this case  just passing through is not something that you can hold against someone for trial and here i thought it was rather picky of them that relate those as a resource discretionary reasons for not granting asylum well the immigration judge i think focused on five things in articulating yet on balance mr simonyan didn't deserve a discretionary grant of asylum he focused first and foremost on the false testimony that was given to the ins attorney before the court with regard fifth factor which is that he was receiving withholding and wouldn't have to return to army and would never face persecution there again yes but if he did sort of positive factors either the man was a professional become too i would not let the lady obtain entry yes he overlooked those factors completely he did over that those factors and the government would contend that those are procedural errors that could have been raised for the board of immigration appeals but weren't sufficiently briefed before the board to the board to be able to weigh in on them and redress those procedural errors that the immigration judge engaged in immigration judge did focus on the fact that he lied before the court and felt that that was the material misrepresentation and yet he found him credible enough to establish the basis of the factual basis for all of the relief he was seeking yes and then he focuses on this lack of credibility in connection with the denial of discretionary relief and isn't it just so or and i'm suggesting to you in spite of the lack of lawyer and all else in this case that squarely in front of us this is adequacy of his exercise of her  exercise of discretion that's here and we have these rather weak suggestions that he could have sought asylum elsewhere where in the world when as i recall he did was probably through moscow and wound up in the us right through the airport yes that's as much as he trusts the soil of any other nation on the way here right now but there were other factors that that is correct your honor but there were other factors that the court cited beyond it in the testimony and then the three were the questioning of the immigration attorney that he was asked and he said he'd been arrested in armenia and the immigration consular official didn't didn't you know raise an eyebrow or question him further about that and then there was also some discussion about whether or not he indicated that he was going to return to armenia because when you receive a visitor visa from a country like arm states once i get there and ask for asylum not one well it's really fair that shouldn't even if it's not common practice it should still count that many people do actually tell the truth to u s consular officials and those people who don't it ought to weigh in in some fashion and just a couple of quick follow up questions first of all as far as it being a material misrepresentation the court specifically the judge specifically found that it was not material that it did not go to the heart of the claim that what was not material the well that's that's a good question and i honestly think there was no valid basis for the discretionary denial because when you look at the record the inconsistency that the court found is clearly totally aside from the issues of counsel we have squarely before us the issue of whether or not we can review this for an abuse of discretion of the discretionary relief right and whether measures up to our prior cases not isn't that what you would prefer that we focus on rather than all of the trappings that went on when we look at this case and see this man without a lawyer  the right to all of this very sick relief and then only thing for on the discretion now a lot of lawyers would be satisfied with the cheating all of that and here he achieved that in spite of all else and now we have a florist's according to your brief and everything that's been reviewed this question of whether he made sure is up to our case law my my concern for my client