again i feel i mean i think the fact that it's the middle of the right it's really hard on the party you're in the middle of directing you're going to do it your train of thought and then she says this is exhausting it's just adding to the like to be with the difficulties of the digital age but what does your client contend that he was unable to present to the immigration judge by virtue of the technical difficulties and aboard has he ever argued that he was prejudiced we are we did argue that in a before the board the problem with  process is that it does require a meaningful opportunity to be heard and it's credibility in immigration cases both pivotal and central because that testimony alone can create a burden satisfy the burden of proof though as it was there any evidence or argument that he did not get to make well looking at his declaration your honor the declaration was over nine pages a lot of that about a lot of different things concerning the credibility of the case and he was not allowed to testify your honor by the drug communication really affects the gray thirty eight to thirty seven even though the well was the court was the the exclusion of the relative was that based on a technical difficulty or a rule of evidence you difficulties and but rather based on lack of demeanor and other acts independent evidence throughout the hearing beyond those that were encountered because of the technical issues so that the record that the well i mean the meter is but one aspect of the credibility finding but she made other determinations regarding his inability to explain certain factual discrepancies in the record one of them being the the fact that although he had an explanation for why the visa application the application indicated that he was a resident of therefore casting some doubt as to whether or not he was actually persecuted given that you tube graphic distance that we're talking about here but there was a separate aspect of the record involving a marriage certificate where that same evidence appeared and he had no explanation for that and i don't think you've given an explanation in your brief about them so that that's just one example of the various sort of record findings that the immigration judge i think was entitle to hang her hat on in making would have been the correct thing to do and also the thing that would have allowed to change it on the photos that were used as exhibits to be discussed and heard so the you know we would say that  goes back and forth she says well but if i could ask you just on the point that you just made was there an objection made before they had j or i don't recall reading any discussion about there being an error by not allowing the uncle came to your brother to testify i mean is that in your brief anywhere your honor it isn't as  chain of custody of the photos and you had intimate knowledge and information that could have been helpful to the court your honor i feel i'm running out of primary proceed with the  been available to testify his uncle there was two other uncles affidavits there was numerous pictures of his home that had been burned down after he left there was pictures of other things that had happened when he went to the the other things that the judge asked for more than he did explain for her to ask forests of something from a smuggler that's unrealistic totally or to keep some kids that helped him in the neighborhood who were paid to showed up for two hours immigration judge i think you know counsel knows what evidence we're going to present and if they leave a witness in the court room you know that's that's their call it's still if it's a council intended to hold that witness then it was her responsibility to not have them in the quorum again i'm not really fully prepared to make this argument because this argument was not made you know either you believe that he is a contact center or telephone person in the wall or he's a cocoa farmer in my view because the record does not compel  the conclusion that he's a cocoa farmer in may you could during the relevant tie period because there is contradictory evidence supplied by him and after you know you tried to get into the united states information he was the one that appeared for his interview and yet when he is right i would direct your honour's to all the record of one hundred and ninety six or two hundred where he's trying where he's cros examined on this i would say case the finding inconsistency regarding where he lived and what he did for a living at the relevant time because if he is living in as a contact center agent then none of these events happened to him they very well and were happening to many angles files in this area and bizarre any of this northwest southwest region of camera but the record does not compel the conclusion that he was living there at that time as he says and i think the biggest sticking point as was was brought up by  your colleague is the marriage certificate an april th there's no suggestion that his aunt filled out his marriage certificate and his marriage certificate says he and therefore the record does not compel the conclusion that he was a cocoa farmer living in my view with respect to the the tell the video in those interruption i think the courts roosts to opinion is instructive although it was ultimately decided based on a lack of prejudice the court details the factors to consider when such a problem books playing all of it i js sincere efforts to understand the testimony on numerous opportunities to elaborate and clarify the testimony and at bottom whether or not the immigration judge understood the factual i would suggest very clear that he immigration judge understood the factual predicate of the claim and again as as your honor is brought up you know to this day what exactly what petitioner was unable to address what claim what fact counsel did mention he was not able to testify about everything in his declaration but the declaration was in the record and certainly considered by the immigration judge so and again at the time that this happened i have the six so it's a section of the direct testimony the remainder once the petition was moved to a another room there were no more problems at all with the testimony the rest of this directs all of cross immigration judges questions redirect there was no other problems and no issue raised before the immigration judge at the time by counsel in terms of hey we need to just pick another day this isn't working out there's there's too many problems here in fact counsel asked the immigration judge perhaps they could just submit a written statement and just be cross again as which was already brought out the meter factor to be at risk credibility was not relied upon by the integration done with respect to the tele video now your honor it's like a direct you to a and the immigration judge brought it out again at page one hundred and fifty three thousand one hundred and fifty four that you know the way it was coming out was not did not seem credible to him so counsel was actually on notice at that point and it incumbent sort of commonsensical away if the tell of video had been a problem with the demeanor you know interruptions just joined to this was not the demeanor finding by the immigration judge like i couldn't follow it you know it just seemed out of order in fact it was the exact opposite demeanor finding that it seemed  was the exact the exact wording in his declaration i think that was the point that the immigration judge was trying to make i'm i hope you think well prepared for this argument but everyone i'm i sort of talked about it so important and then go back to the wealthy you send a final decision had nothing to do but these are the judges d were trying to describe it as torture the situation was maddening you stop me when i'm not going to work all i can work like cohesive telling of his his version of events the immigration judge each time picked up exactly where he had left off and said you know ok sir you were just telling us about exit you were just telling us about why please continue with what you were just telling us about so in order to keep that you know level of continuity the immigration judge did i would say man's job of making sure that that present station despite the interruption is for that you know what i'm asking twenty pages in the transfer put up a section of his of his direct  to keep it flowing and again once it was he was moved to another room no problems whatsoever for the rest of the hearing and i won but i also your honor i brought up  his many travels through many countries one what i would argue that you know he has no proof of that and he couldn't keep straight what are you done with this passport you know from experience as a federal criminal attorney we always told the jurors you know the truth is easy to remember it's that it's the law is and the stories that are hard to keep straight and i think that petitioner had a difficult ringback time explaining away the inconsistency is that his testimony and his documents and at the end of the day the burden of proof cannot be overcome in this case the record simply does not help the conclusion that he was a cocoa farmer and we'll go during that rove and my period and if the record does not compel that conclusion then the rest of his version of  that you know again i'm sort of not in a position to have perhaps a response a better response because it wasn't raised to the board and it wasn't raised in the brief so i don't think the court really  something that the board would have to address that certainly i would have addressed if that had been made as specific contention in this case or that i think i've made the points i wish to make thank your honor so i think judge gregory your point about being reversed is leading to him not being consistent i would say that in this record he was extremely consistent he was consistent with his customs and border patrol q and a he was consistent with this credible fear interview at the border just spite having gone through all these countries an enormous and exhaustion he was consistent on his application for asylum his  eighty nine dollars both enlisting who was his siblings who were his parents what was his occupation and when did he work at those particular places certainly he did work in  application he did not go out that's the only thing that that the counsel for the government was able to point out and the birth of the marriage certificate but at the same time as the marriage certificate was done just about a documents certainly do weigh in favor of the fact that they were respondent has consistently been truthful consistently said the same thing there is he was only asked questions he said pradelle five minutes  vented consular interviews many times that's sort of the procedure i've also been an immigration attorney for thirty years i've been before this particular judge many times he's a good start however in this case i think she was extremely frustrated and rushed and your honor in my experience in thirty years it's always the judge in immigration court who says would you like to sequester your witness that's what the judge set and  behalf of the government i hope to look at your brief and or reply brief can you point us to where exactly that issue is preserved the issue of the uncle not i would say that and in the forests i guess he refers to as his wife and his child have malaria this is a situation where he had severe harm to the past persecution and he certainly still has a well founded fear future persecution this