concept of ramadan versus gonzales where the court can take into consideration mix questions of fact in law i believe this case does not pose the next question of fact in law they say are four to eight point four  passes that the party comes back that's correct so you would say that that's by the multiple arrivals what all the parkers about that regulations dealing with is the last arrival when it says it got off the boat that ship when he said he didn't he said he stayed with the boat when the last time he got off and bear in mind that week when he got off the last time he got off under a legal status arrival is not defined as any coming  arrived and i don't think i need to get to the fact of each time i think the question is what happened on the last arrival and the last time the boat came in three points number one and the government says i ate sixty three on page three seventy seven the cia asked alleges that his last arrival was on june twenty second two thousand and one second that was conceded out a policeman or a court hearing where the judge asked the council if there's an issue other issue that i think is critical on arrival as i stated is any movement of a person from outside of the country to the inside of the country there is a more exacting definition in section one hundred one of the act dealing with that mission he was given a form i ninety five and a three day or a four day period to stay in the united states on his last arrival at the united states in the port of miami i believe it was he  as a person authorized to be here for three days if a person is needed in mid he must have a right it's within the subsection and that is his last arrival i think at thirty we don't need to get to the point of respondent stated in his statement a number of very serious things that happened to him at three arrest he was imprisoned he was mistreated he was kicked hit with a rifle butt threatened treated like a his case he left out the fact that prior to the first arrest he suffered a what i would call a detention february nine hundred ninety five he was walked to a police station by two gentlemen on bicycles  that he was a secretary in the shan organization but that wasn't why he was arrested he said was arrested for participating in an organization as well as others who were arrested for participating in the organization every single aspect of his case you could go on and on and on for i guess days writing your story which you are allowed to expand on it during the course of testimony bear in mind this was an individual who doesn't speak english like so many of the of what would or would have it and i think it's quite an easy decision and i think that may be the best way to analyze this case is as a case where the board improperly improperly a ed without a without opinion under the regulations and under this court's precedent in chan versus ashcroft which is three seventy eight x third ten eighty one where the board streamline improperly that affirms that opinion and properly and you have a novel a novel issue that's not squarely control either by board president or federal court president and i'm not aware of any precedent anywhere in the country  dressed in this issue of what a rival means for purposes of the the one year bar the best thing to do is to remand to the board to let the to let the agency have the first crack at it at  deciding the issue especially in this case where it does not even sort of because of the the ever shifting sands of of review of of immigration decisions the court doesn't have the benefit of if if the court wanted to remand the entire case the government has no opposition to remand in the entire case i don't believe the court necessarily has authority to order the board to reconsider then you know that you could the court could deny the entire petition because there would be no credible evidence the first edition would have presented no credible evidence on any of its claims and but on the other hand if a court does find does reverse the credibility of terminations then then everything's back in play and i think everything is back in play because even if you reversed the  the average credibility terminations you cannot actually find that he's entitled to withholding because there's not been a finding that if if he had presented credible testimony vent he would have made his bird and then better  credibility holding fine is supported by substantial evidence then then i think you could deny the entire petition because it would there wouldn't be even though if you know there's a different standard there isn't there would be no credible evidence before the the application and his testimony and the it's important to remember you know how these how these asylum applications are proceed that the it's the applicant burden to demonstrate eligibility for asylum still fills out the form he has a he has an interview if the file officer can either gratify him refer to the immigration judge goes to the immigration judges in this case and now with the where he knows that his his story the first time is as told was not good enough we suddenly have all we have we have a much better story when it's you know there's a lot more time to rip prepare and to to to address the english issue it at the beginning with these these hearings and in this case of page seventy three of the record the petitioners expressly asked you do you are you familiar with the contents of your asylum application to supplement it however you want to but you know he didn't he didn't do that and said when it's time to testify we he now has an extra rescued no longer just a member of a party he's an officer of the party he wasn't just harassed he was he was five so you know some supplement yes embellish no and when you look at it in the context of how this these applications p again he knows now  story wasn't good enough the first presented it and now it's got a lot of not just new details but you know a whole new events that make it some details that make it much more severe than it and a whole extra vent i think taken together to determine credibility is cross examination it's a right all sides have a right of cross examination this gentleman testified he was cross examined by both the trial attorney and the immigration judge  story his testimony was clear concise and rebutted and in great detail there is no contradiction between his story and and what was his testimony and what was written  minor things added question he has had those things been put in in the first place with the immigration judge have granted his case probably not he would have found another way to deny that this was a case that was going to be denied and it was denied own reasons that are not material to decline the claim is supported by excellent testimony it is supported by well known and well documented country conditions and the surplusage that