record and the government lawyer did not object and that is in the direct testimony so well here's my here's my concern he was found not credible in that credibility finding is hard to attack in fact you really don't really you don't really amount much of a challenge to the to the credibility finding that now you have now your case was pretty clear that just because there's an adverse credibility funny doesn't mean that it washes as in fact we use the term want the court use the term washes over to the cat claim because we know that the regulations on cat require the the immigration judge to take a look at all the evidence country conditions and any other evidence that shows that the claimants particular condition is such that he if we turn to the country he would he's a met you know whatever physical particular situation is he would be subjected to torture z opinion is not very good when it comes to the cackling but what is there in the record apart from his credibility and there is a mentality that says that if you're against me you should be either dead or in jail and this is what when you want to get out these country reports indicate if i could let me s are four nine five first of all in one thousand nine hundred seven albania totally collapsed because of these tensions between the two part and there was the quote introduction of a morphing national protection then our nine hundred ninety seven a r five five six many court buildings were destroyed in the civil unrest and important records and legal materials were permanently destroyed anything well i think so i think we see also in our five five three that the judiciary is subject to corruption and executive pressure there are complaints of unqualified and unprofessional judges between these two groups and then see our main reason for the nine credibility finding was the finding that he was not a judge in the trial court as now counsel seems to attribute many of the errors that were made earlier to ineffective assistance of counsel and in doing so he ignores one of the fundamental problems here and that is in order to establish that there's that there's a due process issue here he has to establish prejudice and because it as you have noted judged by as that he has failed to address the adverse credibility determination  clear that you know even if you have suffer an adverse credibility finding an asylum or withholding that doesn't automatically wipe out the cackling if there's other evidence in someone in his situation you can't just put the question reporting and say that that means that i individually am going to be tortured exactly your honor and that's where the average credibility determination comes and because once you apply that determination you take away most of what would connect him to what's in the state department country reports because absent he has his credibility trying nation he's nothing more than a minute and then somebody who is present in a document that purports to be membership a membership card for the democratic addressed the cackling well the the important issue there is not whether the board made a different herman nation but whether there was an appropriate analysis of that that claim and whether it was properly grief and approached by my was whether he presented sufficient evidence apart from his credibility apart from what he testified to that was rejected on credibility other evidence that would show that if you were sent back to albania more likely than not but i'm not mistaken when the board says we're so here we read the record and we were able to decide the merits of this so what good is a lawyer i mean you know who needs a lawyer if the board's going to say well we  this particular case is that that no lawyer in this case could have done anything could have argued anything to the board to get over the adverse credibility germination vis adverse credibility terminations is just about as solid as you will see to a pretty good argument about why they didn't properly address can agree with that you're on there's no there's no attorney he could pick who could have overcome this adverse credibility terminations to direct intentional lies to the court motivated by his fear that if he did not lie he would not be granted asylum so based on that adverse credibility terminations i think government ask this court to deny the petition for