as well subsequently when he provided corroborating evidence in the form of a birth certificate all of that information was consistent and so there is no basis for the immigration judge to another woman was he carrying any papers that would have identified with her with her husband she was carrying the papers are on the plane and somehow that the whole roof fell apart quickly when they got to san francisco evidently quick words if i may about the standard of review in government and we are generally in agreement on the standard of review that the immigration judge must put forward specific cogent reasons that have a logical nexus to a credibility determination and  go to the heart of the asylum claim there's one aspect of the standard of review though where we disagree and that is as to the deference that is due to the immigration judges findings regarding credibility this is not a case that turns on the demeanor of the witness there are no comments by the immigration judge about things such as his countenance how he sat or stand or stood when he was testifying his tone of voice his coloration the types of things that a trial judge or in this case an immigration judge would be uniquely situated to observe this rather is a case where the credibility determinations are based on the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record so this court as well as the immigration judge is fully equipped to assess and in our view reassess and reverse the credibility terminations that were made by the immigration judge in this case now the six specific findings and i think you're given the shortness of time i mean not be able to elaborate on the basis of them but i'd like to respect them and then so like several that i think are perhaps most important first of all the immigration judge did not  was true and he also testified that he was aware of accusations of violence and that those accusations were part of a government effort to discredit the group that he was a part of it secondly the immigration judge did not believe mr but varying accounts of the strength testimony of various times and i mean this is the only one that really goes to the heart of the client what how do you explain his different one point he says for example that how do we how do we deal with that i think indeed that all of that testimony is consistent it is quite reasonable and logical in this court has in other cases recognized that there's nothing wrong with a an asylum applicant not acknowledging something that he doesn't believe is true this is analogous to the stink place in which the failure to mention a false allegation of spousal abuse could not be a basis for finding an adverse credibility finding in this case money testified consistently that he did not know about acts of violence that were in fact carried out by members of the movement he also testified consistently that he had heard of them being accused of violence and he testified consistently that those accusations which he did not believe and which he once characterized as rumors were part of a government campaign to discredit him this is not just the that the allegations of violence against the the i y a movement more took place in other states not knocking on delta state where he was where he was active he did indeed and and along with that he testified that there was there were many difficulties in terms of getting accurate information both reading newspapers and he did not have access to except when he was in graduate school or rather in school and also that there was a lack of electricity so people didn't have televisions to watch certainly there was some communication and we did hear what he terrorized as rumors and accusations and he also testified consistently and there's no contradictory evidence that the even the alleged incidents did not take place in his area where he was active which also relates to another misunderstanding that the immigration judge had he appeared to confuse or conflate mr  relatively prominent role in the local israel used movement with a relatively rather extremely minor role in significant perhaps role in the national movement and again if the court looks at the record as a prominent and in some cases it refers to the national component which is really a whole bunch of local organisations in which is role was not prominent and he starts from his declaration where he first described the  movement as a local organization based in spelling so the the fact that he was focused on the local situation is further support for him not necessarily knowing about allegations that  petitioner and the immigration judge explained the reasons why he did not believe the petitioner those reasons were legitimate they were reasonable and they were supported and the record w movement in nigeria is not one bit of detail in the testimony to the government has any doubt on any anything substantive that he said other than to violence other than the violence and the term base resist physical force and so forth that's correct ok right ok so when he's describing this dance and he's not a member of that religion it's hard to it's hard to say he's not credible or not knowing the details of the religion well you're right that's a perfectly permissible analysis but the i j a is equally reasonable and again this court's precedent has demonstrated that joining too can consist of conclusions from the same evidence is the basis to affirm the thank you and you for the thank you that's hard to top and i want to try a few comments in response to mr president are going to first of all with respect to the testimony about events to it was not days later that investors so there really is there is no contrary evidence and if the court looks at the record as a whole as it certainly is supposed to do it's clear there's no inconsistency and no basis for a finding lack of credibility on this point with respect to the procedural status of this case i would agree with the comments from the panel that there is nothing left and usually if this court determines that the credibility finding is erroneous as we believe it is then all of the evidence in the record shows that that past persecution has been established and certainly although under the grant of asylum there is room for discretion on withholding