critical it's it's comes down to boils down to the two overseas report alleging that the documents were fraudulent petitioners arguing that these reports are  a legal entry so i believe she is entitled to due process under the angle of holding before before you get there counsel there's a threshold question of whether this is this action is timely and  you would concede that the application for asylum was more than a year after she entered and i know that you had briefed before the be a question of whether extraordinary circumstances that excuse that but you have should also show that the action or the petition was brought within a reasonable time and that was not raised in your brief before the b i a which i looked through it and then a lot of briefing about incompetent townsell and everything else but nothing that explains the sixteen month delay from the time that is has a cabbage lost contact with her counsel whose try just trying to seek some kind of labor certificate or something and the time she finally retain counsel and did something on her asylum should so the sixteenth month gap there and i don't think any court has held that's a reasonable period of time so please address that yes you are well first of all i believe the report goes to all three claims which is the asylum withholding and the guy claims but in the immigration court an immigration attorney argues for one of the exceptions once the court finds that one of the exceptions exists or lies then usually goes it was filed within a reasonable time period i believe in this case i don't know if we got that far because i believe the judge never really accepted the exception that it was ineffective assistance of counsel so that excuses your the admission in making that second prong argument before the b i e rather than excuse it but i don't believe the arguments can waive the government argues the argument was waived because it wasn't raised in the brief but it was the one year exception was raised in the brief considerably we never got to the issue of reasonable time period but i believe that if the judge had accepted exception she would question the respondent on whether it was a reasonable although when you when you file an appellate brief you hope that you win on the first issue and you also hope that you win on the second issue so when would you have raised it i mean to be able say rule in your favor found extraordinary circumstances do an ineffective assistance w otherwise why would you need the exceptional if you're arguing it was within a reasonable immigration judge said even if even a for failure to comply with these regulatory requirements talking about the timing it could be excused she still must establish that she filed this island application within a reasonable period of time she has failed to do that so why wasn't it reached i mean that seems like it was reached and i don't see the challenge to that discussion but i j when you went to the b ira ok and for that matter i don't see the challenge to that particular issue here you know where in your brief to us do you contest the finding by the i j which to be expressly repeated that even if we get pod i the ineffective assistance of counsel except that extraordinary circumstances petitioner hasn't demonstrated that that the filing was within a reasonable period and i look at the brief has been filed with us and i really don't see any argument on that subject to us either asylum application within a quote reasonable period close quote of the claimed extraordinary purposes as an alternative ground and it was not argued us then it stays in place so what else do you have and i see your point then it would be withholding cat ok and we would like to proceed with those claims obviously those are mandatory forms of relief not discretionary forms of relief so so if the applicant does qualify the judge is supposed to grant those cases in this case she would qualify for withholding or for credibility finding was reversed i believe if you look at the reports like i said there's a question whether this investigator is the government employee or not is this person is a government employee or not if this person says there is no police department or no prosecutor's office at this address and she has time and she can't come up with a picture of the prosecutor's office at that address or any map i mean why isn't that just on its own dispositive because the report should not be admissible is the argument if you look at it states that these reports are entitled to a presumption of trustworthiness because their government prepared if a non government person is the key person preparing the report or investigating then i don't believe it's entitled to this presumption i mean i don't even know if you need a presumption i mean if anyone comes and shows  of the city and says she's lying there's no office there then and it's true because she can't show there is an office there then isn't that a law and then what how do we get past that we couldn't cross examine the prepare of the report what are you going to cross examine me there m what but on what subject we have a specific report that there's no prosecutor office at that address or not a lot you can cross examine about and the opportunity is clearly there to come back with whatever evidence might be available if there is a prosecut appointed we couldn't argue any of that because i couldn't cross examine but there with this we're talking about an objective fact there are some things i understand why cross examination could be useful but the objective fact of the address that could have been ascertained in some way and present in rebuttal she was given time by the i j a to come up the bottle in unlike some cases she just didn't come up with anything ok that's a valid point but if the reports on its mission of even one counterfeit document is sufficient to undermine the credibility of the testimony and this court has agreed with that holding this court has held particularly agreed with that when in matter of o distinguish between documents that were just to flee the country and documents that go to the heart of the claim and here we have documents that go to the heart of her claim her claim that she was interviewed by a prosecutor and that she was imprisoned and then hospitalized for two weeks in the brain surgery unit but thin overseas investigators did some basic fact checking and found that the basic facts underlying some of the basic facts underlying those particular documents she submitted of her testimony simply weren't true and and that is that is based on more or less triple hearsay in the origin of the source the foreign affairs official and valorous we know nothing about with what their position is nor the nature of the conversation between that person in the us agent may i this was discussed in and also i understand in terms of the statutory right across examination i  s that that's been answered now but here you admit there is a due process right that can vest absolutely i so i guess the question is does is there a different analysis under due process several circuits including a fourth have applied to due process analysis not just a statutory cross examination without result with this result be the same here i would say that and of controls with regard to the statutory analysis yes but also informs with regard to th process analysis because the statutes and selig's are clearly designed to make the proceeding fundamentally fair reasonable opportunity to review the evidence against her her opportunity to cross examine those are the statutory rights  addressed in god in our controlled by in god in any god it even says there's nothing unfair about it having a u s government agent check out some of his the basic facts so that goes to the fairness although that cou be arguably dick does since it wasn't decided no due process i think it's persuasive but also know that the fourth circuit case that you're talking about and some of the others that address that end of disagreed with those didn't create some sort of distinction between the statutory rights and due process it wasn't as if you could somehow clear the statutory rights and yet still violate due process they  basically said well there wasn't a reasonable opportunity to review the evidence or they decided essentially only statutory rights but just decided their own due process whereas lynn the second circuit skips due process and went to the statutory rights and substantial evidence so i mean i have not been able to find anything that distinguishes in that fine tooth way saying well there's some right that's not covered by the statute but that is then violated by an makes sense they don't go through the statutory rights and find those satisfied but then find that due process was violent is there some reason why because of the veil ability of video conferencing in this earthing that i know the agent was not in the country but i just wondering practically why not make that person available through you know skype or some other video conferencing well certainly the technology availability has improved to that point so i see your point i think that d h has argued that given his other responsibilities and the fact that he was stationed overseas it was unreasonable but i think we need to take a step back this court has held in numerous places regardless of whether a government official is overseas or not that presentation of a government official government form is entitled to a presumption of reliability and there's no automatic right to cross examine the author on the form really doesn't tell us as much as we usually get though i mean it is the triple hearsay element that gives me some pause because even if we could get somebody from the embassy connected via skype that person can only report what he's been told by somebody else that that person was told by somebody else that they read in all source here appears to be somebody with an ministry of foreign affairs that's right it appears that they used someone in the ministry of foreign affairs to check some of these facts such as was the prosecutor's office ever located at this particular address or is someone with the name of the prosecutor and i understand the logic of that except you've got somebody who's claiming persecution by officials in that country is that on its face a reliable source i think about it and if if i guess we've normalized relations north korea there we go we're still we're still hostile north korea so you got somebody claiming they were persecuted in north korea and we're going to check duties reliably includes an end of says this includes a presumption down the chain they rely on people that to the best of their ability and their official duties they consider reliable source and that's one thing that they they at least could have been provided why did the u s official rely on this ministry of foreign affairs person i mean what stature was a person that he dealt with them before i mean we deal with confidential informants and trying to term is probably because you have to show the crop aeration past history of reliability it cetera et cetera why didn't we know why didn't they least give some information and they relied on this person before had that headed proven truthful but i agree that that information is not here and i can't tell you why it's not here but i think that goes to the weight of the document and the immigration judges than faced with wayne a document as you say doesn't give all that information and in this case hearsay is it miscible but then does go to the weight but weighing that versus a ninety day continuance with no rebuttal evidence whatsoever and that's the decision that the immigration judge is faced with is how the way that evidence and so in this case although that information would have helped to inform the weight that could have been given to the document because petitioner didn't provide any rebuttal evidence even as to some of these basic facts it's simply the hearsay there hasn't she hasn't overcome the presumption of regularity and the presumption of legitimacy for a government form in a government report and as to the due process issue i also wanted to  mention that several of the cases vonderen go and snappy and or cases in which overseas investigative reports have been admitted and this court has found that it violated due process but both of those cases it was because no continuance was given it was admitted on as impeachment evidence on cross examination and then there was no continuance to review the evidence and present rebuttal evidence so this and in fact unsnap in this court stated that if that circumstance arose and without advance notice it was presented on cross examination the immigration judge had to either not admit the d h as evidence or continue the case and here the immigration judge did that she continued the case and allowed rebuttal evidence and then the government report is presumptively reliable although as you say it doesn't contain all the information that could have been helpful for wanat but in light of the fact that petitioner came back with no rebuttal evidence it's sufficient to support to be substantial evidence to support the adverse credibility determine its deficient on its own or do we also need the visa application statements i would say that it is sufficient on its own yes and that's a matter of ody and these go to the heart of the claim i would even more so than the visa application whether she went to the prosecutor's office whether she was hospitalized that's the heart of her cl now the visa application the statements i think are weak or to be quite frank i think that because of the case law saying that if someone is fleeing the country now she in her testimony she didn't claim that that's why she gave misstatements on her  application and so then he was like she might have thought that though i mean it's pretty reasonable for her to think she should lie in those ways on the visa application it seems right so and she might have thought she was going to live in alaska even if her plans changed and i would agree that if that were the only mystery inconsistency or misrepresentation in this case it would be a very different case but in the totality of the circumstances the immigration judge considered that plus inconsistent season her testimony asylum statement didn't even completely omitted the prosecutor visit instead instead that she went to the state security office so that's an inconsistency and my time is up but i would say substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination light on this statement as to why there was no breach or even couldn't even raise it however it doesn't show that it was consistent through the chain without having you oltmans why do we assume the first person who has contacted his boss or from the port ever told the second person man the n korea simply about the hospital record for example and so the second person couldn't have reached confidentiality of the second person didn't know the reason for the  right i believe it raises the question why would they be asking about a prosecutorial paperwork it's obviously not a marriage case it's not a marriage pretend they don't know that they don't know what kind of case it i of the investigations are probably related to asylum people in the country don't know it but i believe the investigators will know it well isn't the concern that people in the country will know i mean the concern is that the people in the country will retaliate but if they don't know whether it's a marriage case or any other kind of case then they have no reason to retaliate but i was answering justice friedland question about how would the investigator in minsk know about it and i believe he would know about it he's probably doing dozens of these and they're all probably asylum exactly what happened exactly what was said and also raise the question whether this mr cooper is a government employee or a government contractor he doesn't have a title of just an officer like the other people do