issues here that i would like to respond to that were raised by the government first of all with regard to the expert witness and the issue of the whether or not the judge should properly den merely because of an a busy academic schedule but he was unavailable at the last minute because of a matter because of a matter in which he was required to appear or at least he on hold for naji's counsel didn't even know about this until the morning of the hearing itself so he could not have given much advance notice to the immigration court as to the absence and throughout the and different parts of the hearing the too was involved in the grand jury didn't the grand quite a number of continuances in this case but there were first of all this is a visiting judge but this case had been on for a while but this was something that came with a last minute this is not was not just a matter of well your honor we need another continuance for something that this was something that happened at the very last minute on the morning of the hearing itself something that could not have even been  main problem on the credibility issue there were two things that came up that were not a part of the that is the main credibility issue had to do with them that discrepancies between his three as well as at the interview he didn't talk about the the arrests and his involvement in this particular group however there was also concern that was not only limited to that but having to do with the vent because the expert i mean in the c v was going to talk about the situation in yemen the likelihood of harm to the to the petitioner is going to talk about the situation as it would relate how does that related to the credibility credibility problems have to do with events that occurred in one before he left in ninety two that were not mentioned in the five eighty nine but one could also see problems that arise out of things that happened not only after that but after the are poor and don't meet internationally recognized minimum standards so i think that at the very least for even for purposes of just torture convention that the expert could have been helpful and and the i think in any exhaustion case is whether the board was given notice that a certain aspect of the idea of the immigration judge's decision was being challenged and that the board had an opportunity to pass on the issue in this particular  mostly on the expert witness and i just now the continuance in that regard and the jurisdiction over the cat claim and the government's position is that position has failed to demonstrate that the record compels the conclusion that he is either credible or eligible for any of the forms of relief he has requested he had three opportunities to present his claims to the agency and with each opportunity he offered a markedly different account of what had happened to him this simple fact  didn't find out until the day before the hearing that this expert was unavailable however if he was being called for grand jury testimony presumably he would have had prior knowledge of that fact and the counsel could have worked with him to let the court know in a timely fashion that there was a possibility of individual would not be able to appear not withstanding that fact as drivers have noted there's no evidence in the record showing what the expert would have testified to that would have either salvage the credibility claim which i think is beyond just you can't find that it was and he was anything other than incredible with his three different claims before the agency moreover despite his contention that it would have somehow bolster his ca the other thing is that again in terms of to what extent the the expert would be able to know about the specifics of mr g s case of course that would have been found out during board year