remove all under the convention against torture because there are no criminal bars to this form of relief this court you only consider whether it is more likely than not mr ringold will be tortured  was that he had been tortured and had his fingers broken correct that's correct mr moore you can go also produce the nineteen ninety three medical report that determination can be made by the be correct what you're saying is an adverse credibility determination was not made by the language because we have reason to doubt the respond testimony regarding alleged torture that's correct they have to use the word turgid call phrase we find adverse credibility finding against him saying that language because we have reason to doubt the respondents testimony regarding alleged torture and mistreatment he suffered in the past and have insufficient evidence regarding the likelihood that he will be tortured in the future question was that the report actually stated that there were no there was no permanent vonnie damage which does not contradict his claim that he had broken fingers and in fact the immigration judge commented on that during the his holding that that isn't a contradiction detention government officials subjected him to repeated electric shocks administered to his testicles repeatedly beat him with rifle butts and other objects suspended him in a stretching form of punishment and forced water because twelve fifty two a to  determination first as i previously mentioned the da did not make an explicit credibility i burst credibility determination and without that explicit adverse and ability determination it cannot reject and whole the testimony that mr marino provided petitioner was actually ordered removed for an aggravated felony which the sentencing judge described as the ritualistic torture of his children and the awful sexual penetration of the eleven year old daughter petitioners use how the board  constitutional errors applies here so therefore under section twelve fifty two a to see of title eight dischord last jurisdiction under the factual dispute in this case the petitioner can't come here today and argue the merits of the case because the court can't look at the factual issues in this particular case with respect to the claim of cooperation and whether the board of corporately look to other evidence in this case the board was exercising its plenary authority under its regulation to look at the entire case it has a full regulatory authority to look at a case to know both the considered judgment of law and here it was considering whether the alien  the petitioners denial of the criminal responsibility in this case that called into question to cher's over all candor because his candor was in question here the court has certainly look at other evidence in the record and determine whether that evidence has met his burden of for and therefore that was another factor going to the boy's consideration the cooperation played so again there were no legal or constitutional errors made by the board so therefore the real i d act the expansion of the sports jurisdiction to consider me ask you and i can ask the misplaced my notes on i'm may have some of the facts wrong but as i recall the lack of corroborating evidence was was one of the factors that led as was what he was eligible for protection of coverage against torture there was a hearing with respect to that where he denied criminal responsibility and the immigration judge said there i have questions about that you're denying the facts of this case and i have a question question before the immigration judge and candor and credibility and cooperation are always questions of packing for the immigration judge going on throughout the case as well as when he takes appeals to the board of immigration appeals so he was on notice that his candor was in question when he was before the immigration judge and he did put on or simply put on evidence before the immigration judge and then he went on to the board with the board concluded that there was simply court cooperation was lacking here and again the board look at it when area forty some look at the case to no acquired corroborating evidence where there was no adverse credibility that's correct but you say that doesn't get us anywhere in granting removal deferral from  l because the factual issue as to whether there was not torture in the past a reasonable grounds for believing torture in the future which would be grounds for the for a move cannot be reexamined by this court under twelve has you see that that that's an awfully ratcheted up the court the question of this case ultimately are factual there is a legal issue if you will asked whether it was appropriate for you to look at further cooperation in the board was a perfectly confounded by the lack of candor here and in a properly assisted on as a legal matter the actions of the cooperation but if the board's factual finding was based on legal errors that is struggled on this adverse credibility finding a flaw and i understand the board struggles with our court case law on that subject i'm hardly alone but i can't recall in that situation before where i'm reading of a terminology adverse credibility a determination we have what substantively is really the same kind of thing we don't believe what this person is telling us so we're not going to take tests on about fingers at face value and there seems to be some tension there and it did but isn't it really trying to do the same thing here by saying well we don't have to accept this test on the face value because risk epochal about his credibility and if you took at face value what he says it's harder reached any conclusion other than the fact that he it's not for us to reach the actual conclusion but so they didn't take it at face value and how can how can they do that without an adverse credibility determination in may there's two ways they do that they don't make an adverse credibility finding or they the point to its relative or authority to look at the case to know and what it can't determine what to believe it says we do have these cases matter best and jay which is that in our brief to say that we can look at further cooperation or cooperation is smith when the board is looking at a case done on the review looking at judgment of law and whether the elements of burden of proof it can certainly be confounded by the lack of candor in the system cooperation and that's not a legal there and we've submitted the petition for you should be dismissed for