the waitlist documents was at the expense expense of discounting credible evidence independent corroboration that the i j could invent kno rehabilitate her testimony standing alone but having said that you know under this our asylum was require us to not stop analyzing the case act the moment we have some minor who this circuit and as well as other circuits have pulled out the misrepresentation and see if there's untainted independent corroboration and here the independent corroboration was overwhelming i think that the i i was so bothered by the misrepresentation that sure judgment was clouded in that she didn't give the independent corroboration appropriate way even though what do you do with yes i think the problem with the case with respect to her past experience says it is the j didn't delve into her past experiences in tibet at all she spent ten minutes on that issue because of the entire hearing was totally consumed by the issue of the documents of the chinese identification documents so as a result the i g didn't there was an expert witness who testified that he interviewed mr almost six hours about her past experiences and that supplements the record in the world where the record is way we don't have any inconsistency is discrepancies with respect  assessment of missed almost testimony credible and she did make and she did state that the reason her and her family fled to bat was because they were supporting that and that the government was on the verge of finding out that they were supporters of the her activism the united states is something that this court assumes will continue we don't force people to divorce themselves from the political views upon return so if she was to return and to continue with her activism then as a result she would surely have more than a more likely than not fear of persecution if she was returned to continue her activities and finally are now i would to add one more the only instance where mr aylmore would have to return to china if the i j was incorrect with respect to whether or not she's tibet and the idea is grounds for denying her her saying that she doesn't have a well founded expired you will know here from the government because i want to make clear the government's position in this respect it's been a month discussion from the council about whether the record supports the finding of a well founded fear future persecution based on independent corroboration and country background and the experts testimony the expert in fact is expert in psychological and tragic trauma assessments not in tibet the government's position is that there is no finding on the merits in this case because so that being the case on the merits that the court should not reach that issue here today of our credibility to credibility here your honor is we have an applicant who submitted fraudulent documents setting aside the passport discoursed case was clear that what is the issue before this court at this point if the issue that the i j decided was whether or not she was to bet and reach the conclusion that he could not believe her that she was her case before the court and if you read the immigration judge decision i think it's clear that she was struggling and that she was having a hard time with  this is a very unusual case for me because i am surprised in fact i don't quite understand why the i j a could not have reached a determination she kind of threw up her hands what do you do when the o j kind of thro but here you are on to the finding is that she's not credible and is this court has held an applicant who has been deemed unbelievable as to one material fact may then be disbelieved in all other aspects of her claim and so i would submit that we do going down we're dealing with an unusual country here that if this were an eastern european country that is sure this there might be different but here we have independent evidence that indicates that this is a common occurrence with knew what to believe and in addition there's the issue corroborating evidence which could have been submitted from petitioners husband despite the fact that he is in nepal in this court is normally determined that that would not be  she has independent corroboration evidence from individuals here in the united states that i just found this evidence was subject to diminish rape because the individuals who wrote those letters were available for cross examination but did not and were not made available to the court