thirty eight thirty nine eighty eight which deals with the subject directly on point which is it isn't enough that there was a conversion to christianity we must look also to see if it was  lly genuine and since there has been no discussion whatsoever as to what the motivation was the board of immigration appeals has no reason to decide converting to christianity occurred after he arrived in the united states isn't that correct is correct that is correct but we also have seen a tremendous increase in the rhetoric and animosity towards other religions in iran i mean we only have to look to president ahmadinejad's speech recently at the united nations where he's either spiritual leader or where he is he is the second in command spiritual yes that he has a great following as well he has  organizations that promote a radical islam in iran and in fact recently we found out that you can call on an eight hundred number of kin to an eight hundred number basically listen to why the west is d any testimony from from the expert witness that is correct and that is a major issue in this case as well because what she really said was i don't understand how your testimony would reflect and persecution of yet she would not allow an expert to come and explain how anybody who has perceived homosexuality would be persecuted in iran and then on the other hand she said since i don't really understand it it doesn't make sense and therefore i find you not credible in essence by not allowing the experts she violated to due process issues the first was she didn't allow him to present a four case the second was she didn't actually allow him to explain her because of persecution it isn't enough that even if they didn't actually know that you were of homo sexual persuasion if they perceived us such that would be yes because when you want to prove asylum you have an objective and subjective criteria the objective criteria is the country condition and the background the subjective criteria is the individual themselves statement in the transcript she serves i do not find this person credible i just don't think these things happened i'm not even sure he's a homosexual if i were to find incredible i'm inclined to grant that is to say she said she was inclined to believe that persecution was enough but she just didn't believe this person so how many how many more understand how this expert would really militant on the credibility given naturally i can only tell you a sense that i had i happen to a person who professed to be homosexual could be persecuted it was just something ideological with that particular judge and secondly this particular judge wanted to see something that was clear and direct that's enough and what happened here is by not allowing the expert to testify she really did not get the factual basis for understanding why even if it wasn't fifty or record even were she not to allow him to testify she should have allowed that expert to at least or counsel she would least present a crawford but she did not because she had such a you know might be might be able to say well here is the pattern of discrimination against homosexuals in iran you might have been able to say i mean i don't know you might have been able to say i'm up on pretext talking to get them to