microphone carrier i have to know that's more record of the microphone but it's pot mike so i can hear an echo from it it's a spot microphone but i have a little cold but i can tell you don't have to scream i can he now well your honor is this the issue here is credibility as as the record shows congress army was one of twenty one tamils from sri lanka arriving there at the border in a short period of time he had the misfortune to be the first one to have a hearing they all had been coached to give false information about their their itinerary and that was the reason that he was finally found to be not credible on the other hand the people who had not yet started their hearings it is not committed this perjury almost all of them won their cases and they had all written their application saying they had travelled the same route this so i believe there's not substantial evidence to discredit him when he was credible in other respects and most of the other applicants were cases were granted simply because they had not started their hearings before the investigation started is that the only possible to be through the mistake of the translator or a slip of the talk or a slip of the mind he said he was arrested in ninety seven but when it came up later eva's very clear that he was being questioned well what about your arrest in ninety seven and he's not answering he's saying wait what what are you asking about he was very clear it was ninety nine he wasn't confused about it and the fact that the first time he said his mother sold jewelry and they stole property and the second time  standard should be why i think it's a fact question i don't know that you know you could have it are you suggesting we substitute our perception of what the record shows and your argument now that this was just a misstatement for the determination by the board in the well i would say there's an exaggeration if you mean that's not substantial evidence those very minor variations are not inconsistent and therefore they are not substantial evidence for a finding of in explanation because make it necessary for us to at least consider a possible new twist and he says yes and what he says  persecution past persecution you know and he's saying look if i could if i could tell the truth identify how the roof move will kill me that was confirmed is that's why she isn't exactly the kind of smuggling group the same officer schultz exactly the same situation except that this was the person who was alleged to have made the the call to canada and in fact none of it washed  that this occurred now this is a minor player in this whole this is same ring it's the same group he came over in the same bunch and addition or is is will look less culpable if you will than mr not a roger who was accused of being one of the people who made allegedly made this assassination call a can of that just didn't pan out i mean it just didn't pan out from the evidence so i'm looking now mr not roger who we heard last month and this over in court room one in this in this building right council's point in that the other alleged statements when you look at it really does look like at most to me that language problems they don't seem to be true  as far as just the suggestion that cassani had ties to the tigers or his family had connections with the tigers there is there's came from a little island which was entirely controlled by the navy and the tigers were not able to operate there except when he was arrested coming off his boat they suspected the tigers used boats for  very fully developed record yes well it took only man to do that you know but there is discussion of the map of the record on pages one thirty two to one thirty five and there whether the family had ties during the time they were in the valley is not relevant he was young and he's thirteen fourteen years old and can't be imputed to him that he had anything to do with the tigers and there's no evidence as far as the amount paid to smugglers i i don't think that's so i'm not quite sure that there's a contradiction but i don't think it's it goes to credibility because when he bribes repaid to the army he didn't know how much if you got more information later in the year in captivity in in detention maybe he got better information but i'm not really sure there's a contradiction there law and it's not not relevant to the merits of the asylum case so i w