she incorrect in seeking either stronger proof or when i gleaned from the record an expert to say he is in the room your honor asked asked that question i would  me that the immigration courts credibility determination was not based on specific cognate reasons rather is baseless speculation and conjecture on personal opinion from day one it was all about an expert to the immigration judge time and again the outside your door so why could she based on her experience a look at the head many cases like this i need better proof i need an expert to tell me you are what you say you are with respect to the with respect evidence he did before he did anything from day one it was it was only about expert and i would submit that even with the testimony of his wife where he is it is brother but the immigration judge would honor because of the judge's predisposition on what had happened previously with other cases dealing with robots it was basically mr i have his testimony his testimony and there was also documentation that was internal consistency but what the what the i g with immigration judge relied on was an expert the only thing that could prove this case to the immigration judge was an expert ok we'll get you back on thank you  can we take up on that last point because there's something about what mr the hood was saying the argument of the petitioner in this case it seemed like the entire decision hinged on one thing based on my in this case the immigration judge first asked about his ethnicity in july of two thousand and ten and when they had the merits hearing denigration judge did not limit it solely to the expert witness report and said she asked him about his he was what he said he was well if you look at the immigration judge's decision the lack of cooperation did not come stoli from having not having an expert witness report but also from not having a statement from his brother from his brother would mean the united states s she asked for it but there were other ways he could he could have provided the information we don't know what would have happened if he had provided an affidavit from his brother or from his wife question that roma and persons of the city are persecuted in bulgaria where all the immigration judge said that many would be granted asylum and she said but she didn't make a decision on this opportunities he didn't because he misses an opportunity to bring in that cooperate evidence he filed a motion to reopen with the expert witness report which he claims was new and previously unavailable ethnicity that's a man petitioner said i'm not able to produce the statement in august of two thousand and twelve his attorney karl contacted petitioner to ask him about an ethnicity witness he asked his what petitioner testify to he said my skin is a little darker i wear torn clothes like torn sneakers and i live in the ghetto question of bank area well the population there was forty five percent  inconsistency can be used to find an alley and i cried about it doesn't have to go to the heart of his claim here we have material inconsistency that goes to the heart of his claim he said that after he was first arrested he was beaten such that his right and his lower back was injured and he no mention of any fractures but the medical letter said it was his left hand there's a big difference between right and left i mean even a five year old knows that and the medical letter says fractures i know he said well they didn't take a scan of my body to know if i had fractures well if you've ever had a broken bone you would know you had a broken bone not just in addition the not to let it mention a nothing about in light of the i j a is continued insistence on the immigrant proving he said this a t and she was constantly asking him to prove that you are what you say you are and adjourn the case numerous times just for that purpose and they were not able to do that but they finally did as as you probably know this initial report which i have here in my hand if i only got somebody from england  university of london who specializes in this type of group and speaks the language and had this been presented to the i j a during the course of the proceedings argument but he would have to show substantial prejudice and i do not believe that he's able to overcome that substantial prejudice because there is the adverse credible belief writing which again is an independent reason to string it along and call another motion to reopen claiming in effect of this is a council which he failed to show due diligence in bringing it argument he waived before the court in addition he didn't show that his attorney was not reasonable attorney for five years in immigration courts for five years and i don't know what to say is it is unusual in the sense that immigration judges should probably not be asking for certain types of evidence but it does and for those reasons the respondent that we that that all three petitions should be denied their not for their questions thank you thank you m