came to this country seeking refuge in two thousand and one the petitioner makes two major arguments in this case number one that he is and was eligible for asylum withholding convention judge this court has consistently held that credibility determinations have to be based on substantial evidence there has to be specific question reasons for the outmost findings in this case the judge found that the petitioner was not credible because of inconsistent statements that he made her statements that he made during his initial encounters of the port of entry one was made on the day of arrival another credibility yes there is a record that's missing the judge used the initial q and a which the judge cites as exhibit nine page one eighty one eighty one eighty one eighty one of the record if they think nine is not in the record so we don't know that after thirteen days the petitioner would have had the ability to reflect even to get to think about what his statements from his claim is and then tell the rest of the details of this quite it's a little odd because the fisher was in custody and represented help housed with other criminals why they have these interviews i mean it they don't that the there's a purpose to them it's not you know just a close exercise they really they have a credible fear interviews to find out what the story and i'm at a loss as religion of why it's shameful for the i j a to look at what was said and find an absence of a claim of harm and then he tells a different story you comment on the contradiction and when it does we'll be more than happy to address that case if it does in fact get remembered for that reason and i will say that it is a poor record that human a one of the documents that the judge used to find that the addition of was not credible which the who's not firmly settled who is determined to be a special humanitarian concern for the united states and it goes on and then it says for the waivers for the refugees which includes postpone the citizenship the languages the term of the special humanitarian absolutely not it is a discretionary decision at the end of the day the courts have held the court has held that many refugees arrive in the united states in irregular manners they commit all we need to do is to render to the government and they are paroled in the public interest for humanitarian reasons and a year and a day later they can apply for adjustment of status either and you've reported to stations in court sort of come up with a more uniform way of addressing the refugee problems around the world so you could say that that's a broader whereas the cuban act and prior to that time refugee x or laws that addressed refugees were more reactionary or responding to crises around the world the cuban crisis is one of them it was all a part of allowing refugees to resettle so these people were coming in massive numbers between one nine hundred fifty nine and sixty five and they were coming in and the government was paroling them under the  they were allowed to work but some of these people were professionals and unless they acquired lawful permanent resident status they were stifled and so finally they implemented this cuban adjustment act to give these refugees resident status and hopefully someday applies to refugees that refugees therefore eligible under given the legislative history of the cuban adjustment act that cubans who are identified in the class of protective people under the cuban adjustment