conscripting the refugees improperly the altercation took place in his own office after he invited the officers up to discuss the matter when he confronted them and pointed out that what they were doing was illegal understandably they became upset with him and i think that was when he was threatened and pushed she tried to get away and stepped outside of his own office to escape this treatment and he was stopped by a police officer and another military officer in the hallway activity and then after he was beaten he was injured severely and he showed his injuries to the military officers the judge also found that to be not believable but i do believe the record supports that his actions in doing so reasonable or at least believable the officers let me back up the background country condition reports to show that the military has a reputation for being rather abusive towards detainees and towards  that he showed them injuries it is understandable that the military would i don't know if they did ask or not but that they would examine his injuries perhaps to determine the severity of these injuries and whether these particular individual injury was severe enough that he required ten or eleven days of hospitalization it was a very severe injury so it makes sense that he would point this out or at least it would come to the attention of the military officers he spent some time in the hospital  that time himself as an individual because he had been severely beaten in the past therefore she went to a television station and this was set forth in his asylum application as well as in testimony he went to a television station and he explained the reason he chose that station was because it had what he described as an investigative reporting television show on the station the station now with him sent out a reporter the next day thousand well the television interview did happen at that time although i do know that he did not incur any physical harm from the military between the two time periods so the next time he had physical contact with the military officers of the judge did have an opportunity to address the merits the claim however she said i do not believe he has met his burden of proof it's possible that the reason he changed that conclusion was because he did not find the testimony credible and he did not engage in a specific analysis of the elements of asylum however the and the board of immigration appeals had opportunities to refute the claim and they were presented with saying well i really didn't understand what was being said so i don't have any basis to grant relief it's honest i just a decision i think that i ever seen or one of the oddest yes and that aside my point is that the i j a if his own mind thought he had no evidence in front of him so i don't understand how we can now make a decision which you never made because you are  persecution to warrant discretionary asylum really correct and then you had to have the question as to whether he's then entitled to withholding of removal which then opens up the potential for change country conditions for your future prosecution of my growing about that that is you now suggestion ok so the remains that we've been talking about the least of in my mind is that under the overthrow to remove least that's my understanding is that what your you think the proper remained would be i believe and again i stick that's not a proposition that to be i had opportunity to determine al and i will endeavor to demonstrate that the record does support the i g is fighting and should be made clear that if the court finds that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to the immigration charges then under of insurance it should be remanded but with no presumption in the petition as favor whatsoever the immigration judge should be afforded the opportunity under the express language of insurer to restate his decision and then to address the issues that the immigration judge has not yet a titian her was sending i mean he's saying that he was accosted by the military and given a significant injury for trying to protect the kids who were in his not unreasonable constructionism soever i would note that the record makes clear one thing if it was clear to you it was not clear to people in that courtroom one of which was his own attorney there are many instances in the record when his own attorney to recognize what you've got before you and i just i don't understand well it was clear well you want to there are other things that go on the court and there are apparent on the cold record his own attorney became and i can and i can i can point to many instances where his own attorney was frustrated and it's because he was not answering the questions asked to him and when he answered a question he would often interject totally nonsensical answers and on the bottom of one on the floor what happened after ninety nine and his answer the incident of ninety eight in the hospital when i indiscernible and they came to the refugees and after they saw me they asked me what they could do i told them to go to this refugee center now i don't know what that means testimony off a cliff because he was asked he was asked but you had no problems during that period and that is the top of one ninety six his answer at that time they asked me again to go bring those kids back because the first time i got seven out of eleven kids that his attorney says wait a second and i'm quoting wait a second i don't believe there's any testimony going ask you to bring anybody anywhere so again his own attorney doesn't know what what he's talking about and then again he goes back then now he's talking about october of ninety nine and he and he says something that doesn't make very much sense and this is out of context and then again his attorney says i don't understand what you're saying who asked you who asked you and so what we have is a court room where the petitioner can't seem to answer a question asked him again on page one ninety seven he's there talking he's talking vaguely about what happened in these these parents these children and you go to the top of page one ninety then he goes back and forth on page one ninety seven and one ninety eight talking about this t v station vaguely and remembering facts and in the middle of page one ninety eight he's asked about by his lawyer i i want to t v station october one are and then he goes back now the next sentence he's going back to ninety eight when i was released from the hospital i went to the u n office and then he's talking about this representative the u n office in back in one nine hundred ninety eight and how this woman managed absolutely all over the board and he could not seem to answer the questions i asked him and it's not the immigration judges obligation to create a credible record so i want to know and i see my time is running out i want to know that not only other i barred from being able to clarify what he may have said earlier that no one understood that he should be allowed to clarify his testimony and whoever it is in court should be able to ask him to clarify his testimony without him being punished for that and he ultimately did clarify