subdued versus ins which is the only case cited by the board of immigration appeals and its decision not to disturb the immigration judges credibility decisions below in this case the board of immigration appeals addressed only the immigration judge's findings about joe the sins identity for this reason i argue that a reversal of the finding that joe the failed to adequately identify himself is paramount to a finding a balance of his testimony is credible if i can successfully convince this court that the immigration judge erred in holding that job that job the failed to prove his identity we are left with clear night circuit precedent which  after reviewing the case is that what the justification in the justification then becomes not so much that the government should have produced another which i'm not shifting the burden of proof in lada the board found that the applicants did not provide corroboration or justify the absence of cooperation so what i'm arguing here is the joke is reliance on the government justif his failure to produce a duplicate of the same document that he fully expected the government to produce a trial my second point on this issue is that i believe joga did produce better evidence of his identity his claim and his travels better evidence than any duplicate he could have received after the year two thousand and one he came to the united states in two thousand and one his case got to the court which was stamped received by the canadian immigration refugee board december twelfth one thousand nine hundred ninety six any document that he could have come up with after two thousand and one would by its very nature have been prepared solely for the presentation to the court and would not have been prepared contemporaneously with the then that it is attempting to corroborate for this reason alone the court below could have found that the document no objective reasonable fear of persecution of this sikh indian citizen and that overcomes the presumption of the police beatings  becoming the prime minister of india and object of fear of persecution by sikhs no longer exists now are we bound by that i determination if there is substantial evidence of change the country conditions as detailed in his finding establish no objective fear of persecution well i would argue  position of justice saying that the police throughout india continue to act with impunity of course that's not evidence before us today but because the board did not uphold the immigration judges decision on this issue i would argue that it's appropriate for remit and and for submission of new evidence on the issue i would note that the immigration judge did presume that his decision which appears in the record at his fifty five the job that does have a subjective fear here today right well i would also and i take your point but if need be i did not address that point and we have a petition reviewing the b r a decision that the most we can do is to i would not agree that this court could not refute that issue but by way of a robot is that again let is to say i think i heard you say but i'm not sure you really want to say that if we were to disagree with the holding of the b s a on adverse credibility as you say if we were to say listen  position be that and i'm saying that it's not clear from the be a decision whether or not it's adopting affirming or rejecting the judge's decision it's not clear from this from this and so i didn't reach the that's right to me i did not reach the question the certainly the immigration judge's decision is at least that portion that portion of it is before this court before the court's review even though we're not really reviewing the immigration judge's decision in decide whether there was objective fear of persecution or if that issue was made out in the high j's opinion must we remand to the be a for the eye to make leaving the brothers and all that and yet they're saying well you didn't produce the documentation we're ten seemed need to be really how many do anything with credibil particularly with credibility the fact that he failed to produce the birth certificate and the school records was one part of the jason cision but it wasn't the only component at page forty nine of the administrative record the illustrated judge really talks about this issue of adverse credibility he talks about four factors that we looked at and he found that the with the exception of the mean and only with the media because there was an interpreter the court found that the petitioner was not credible  there was never privilege germination for several reasons and in fact beyond just the first if in the school records there were several documents of the i j a documented should have been provided and was not  fifty five the of the administrative record the government or the immigration judge discusses several several instances or problems with the testimony with consistency with the third provides the available documentation that the townsell was aware of the fact these doctors were provided and that at the administrative record at page  ask really a very limited form of remedy which is to say remain on to allow the petitioner to provide the documents that he says he was counting on the government to provide why is that an unreasonable request is board it did not move through this council did not move to reopen and provide those documents to the board and so at this juncture having not raised that issue at the time it was appropriate to ask for a continuance at this point the petition is really arguing is to stop the government and provide not undoable material and easily available evidence can support an adverse credibility finding one i find that kind of hard well in terms of how it sums up what the immigration judge to be i e is saying that the nine he states that with the four factors and from pages forty nine through fifty five he discusses other bases for finding force adverse credibility finding which identity was a part of that decision but the record evidence clearly shows that that was not the only basis for his determination that the petition was not credible and so when we come back to be a decision which is what you want it was focusing on regard to whether this court should review the additional adverse factors cited by the judge from my memory i'm remembering that the judge has only fault with joe this testimony  a student when he left india in one thousand nine hundred one at the time that he testified before the immigration judge who was approximately two thousand and three he had aged thirteen years in the interim he was a member of a student group in the height of the turmoil in the punjab in india but i want to point to this court to do and law that because in both of those cases the immigration judge to quote this court in  contained a hodgepodge of rationales for the adverse credibility decision this court found at least some of them to be incorrect and rain and a lot of so i do also found that there were quite a number of factors but the board apparently only  you only had to produce his father who was sitting in the next county in the united states and that was determined by this court to be easily attainable  applied for asylum in england he provided some original documents to england then to canada where he applied for asylum we have evidence of this other regional documents were left in asylum by the time he arrived in the united states in february of two thousand and one i would argue that no document from india is easily attainable last point mr campbell provided something in two thousand and three claiming that this case is governed by the evidence rules of the real id act i think we can all agree that it is not the be i decision in this case was issued for a boy second two thousand and four id act affects cases only in which the administrative order is entered after may eleventh two thousand and five