access to cross examination and that's the first ground he takes i don't want to misstate the records as neither do i want to state i do know he says he was denied the admission of would have brief the issue to great extent forgetting for a moment the fact that he didn't file in a timely fashion my question to you you're saying that just if you just say to the b i a he i properly denied admission of evidence that means you can raise any issue in the world are cross examination anything like because that's held to be a all these issues you are mentioning now is that right no you are not what i'm trying to that the appeal is putting them on notice that we are appealing the decision or my clients appealing the decision of the i j and will provide further arguments at the briefing scott card but for the moment he that's one of the reasons for the do perhaps due process arguments is the immigration judge came to the conclusion that the united states state department required every individual in the middle east to appear for a visa for a nonimmigrant visa the september eleventh hijackers didn't and after that in a year later fifty five percent of the individuals in saudi arabia did so that was the whole purpose of attaching that to the brief insofar as the other argument  any fasting for corroboration documents if an individual as far as i understand ninth circuit law is if an individual that's applied credibly he doesn't need to provide corroborating documents and in this instance by placing a burden upon my client to provide corroborating documents when he has also shown that he's a president of a legitimate party that was overthrown by a military dictatorship is placing an unequal burden on him i'd like to just keep the initialise claim for asylum was the fact that he asked to speak with representatives of the pakistani government when he was detained upon attempting to enter the united states this after directly undermines his claim that the government was looking for him and specifically looking to kill or incarcerate him it also clearly reveals a lack of fear for his own safety this finding was cogently articulated articulated on the record as one of the immigration judges reasonable for the immigration judge to conclude that mr johnnie's actions spoke louder than his words probative value we have in our federal rules of evidence a rule that recognizes that statements made under the stress of excitement caused by an event are inherently reliable and that i understand i understand the concern your honor i don't think that the record compels a conclusion different than that which was reached by the immigration judge he did render a very thorough twenty some page decision that outlines in detail all of the legitimate questions that he had about the petitioners testimony the minute that the substance of the testimony what was his bases though and that's what today that would create prejudice on the other hand if he said something that would cause us to reverse then he's got at least a potential for prejudice and we don't know because we know it was filed right at the standard is an abuse of discretion and and the bottom line is that clerical scheduling errors don't constitute good cause much less extraordinary circumstances to support an extension of the filing deadline and in any event the position i waited six days after he discovered his mistake said to file where he started by fed ex so that's a seventeen year gap not a one month gap that's a big issue in a big mistake why he call for the pakistani individual or government officials because he thinks he's having a heart attack at the airport saying it's not just passport he's trying to prove to the u s government that's his passport given by a pakistani government official not from any other reason because his whole identity he's being arrested as a suspect he doesn't want to go guantanamo he doesn't want to be sent out of there he's got nothing to do with terrorism so that's why he's asking for an individual to prove who he is that in no way this proves his failure so that's a complete red herring regarding the standard what is the standard six days the case to quote rwanda it was eight months later that the ninth circuit allowed the individual to file a brief this was fi days eleven days they received it and they don't state a standard what's the prejudice to the government none it's extreme prejudice to my client not to have had his brief read before the vi thanks very much thank you very much