we don't have any jurisdiction do anything with that well your honor i don't believe there was at the time and i guess the decision was rendered there would have had to be a motion to reopen to pursue cad i don't know if that was done in this case but and that he did not want to return he was forced to return by the i believe the indonesian government and he states on page one forty one of the record that he did not want to return to india that he was afraid of returning to india and then on page one forty three testify consistently with these asylum application on page sixty eight of the record that's he that he gave that he was forced to give both his money and his address to the immigration authorities once he returned that he did not  that he did not feel safe in delhi because he gave his uncle's address so that to the immigration authorities and that he there poor because of encouragement from his uncle which he testified to on page one forty three he cited that he would leave his situation including the time you were detained upon your return in india you gave them all the money you had then if with this court is to hold that therefore it only makes sense and we can discredit your testimony in the approach it's not can you think of an excuse for him and it's the testimony to why he returned to india but clearly if we look at page one point three of the record and contrast that i compare and contrast it with his written declaration on page sixty eight there are your honor i mean possibility and an african for a son has present believable and consistent testimony and possibility certainly goes to the police ability aspect for sure one of the other w that there was who wasn't enough to sustain substantial evidence in that case it did your honor but in this case we think that the facts support support our contention that what you're relying on primarily in terms triated by the indonesian authorities back to india in ninety five i believe he was detained for half an hour and questioned by indian immigration authorities in delhi he wasn't armed he  home village where he claims but if you will the locus of the persecution he voluntarily went back home and felt safe enough to get married in fact soon after this second i think most compelling fact in this case it's his father who was allegedly the basis of one of his arrests mother brother sister and why are all living in this home village back in india and according to his own evidence doing fairly well plausibility of his belief that he would suffer persecution back to india and has a well founded fear of persecution in india the fact that his whole family's doings quine there and that he himself felt safe enough to return right one because the date of hospital hospitalization noted conflicted with his testimony now immigration judge did not give a lot of weight to the second letter because it was prepared six and a half years after the alleged date of treatment the letter did not specify why these documents were prepared it was not clear that they were prepared in the course of medical treatment the letters were very generalized and as your honor noted one of them said he had a dislocated knee and he in fact denied that he had dislocated need ring his own testimony and finally the letters appeared to come from a hospital that was some distance from his home village and it was not clear why why he would have been treated there and and also that contradicted his own testimony that the doctor had in fact companies home and treated him part of documentation to overcome the adverse credibility terminations it was quite proper for the immigration judge to make an adverse credibility determination final your honour's i just want to speak briefly to the exhaustion issue on the convention against torture it was not raised to the board under the clear precedent of this court has failed to exhaust is administrative remedies he upon it in our brief but the immigration judge merely made an adverse credibility determination he didn't address you go directly to the merits of his claim he didn't talk about internal relocation which would himself so the merits were not reached in this case and and objective components believes he's afraid and so the immigration judge cannot say well i don't think it's possible that you should be afraid and therefore you're not credible you can't say that you can only say look you may don't think that we can make that conclusion if the respondent response counsel and the immigration judge wanted to deny this case based on well thank you for your future prosecution that could have been done either responding could have asked for remains for more clear to more complete