judge and what nobody asked him if he even knew about it so the third didn't seem to be any kind of a he didn't i suppose he said i didn't know about it ought i mean aren't you just slightly responsible for what information you put in to a court record in order to get a benefit from united states government well but the thing is is that i mean and in questioning you know i mean i know this might be answering on the record and that didn't happen regardless of how many times it was also had perhaps perhaps on the issue of the frivolousness issue but when it comes to the average credibility that under the leak case if if the at if the shall i say the misrepresentations go to the very heart of the application the judges entitle to do what he did is it not but if you find that there misrepresentation then my argument and my problem here is that the judge did not go into that as what do you think what do you think that i mean are you arguing that any of these points about person's knowledge of any of this and and the only thing that's in the record that you know i didn't know i was wife got the letters and like i said there were there was the wife the sister of the funeral i mean several people removed and there's no indication there that he has any independent knowledge of what enough to still should look like i mean this is in an area of expertise that there was no so you're saying that the government has to show what the applicant was know that what he is doing is only i well that's with respect if it was not so with respect to the average credibility where is the requirement and the rule that the judge has to find a mens rea with respect to these book on whether or not there were other things in the record that went to adverse credibility or not but i mean but at least the initial analysis of your money there hey i think requires that the person has to know and eighty nine of the administrative record where the immigration judge sets out to the petitioner exactly what the standard is for a frivolous application i can only say that you can infer from the record that he was applying the correct standard when he made that ultimate conclusion required i would agree that it is important find here if i may return to the point that i'm making about the importance of the need for corroborating evidence this court said in situ and a line of cases that follow that if the immigration judge has reason to question the credibility of the helium if the alien could be expected to come up with corroborating evidence that is material non duplicat and the a b m then fails to provide a credible explanation for not providing that information that is sufficient to support an at risk credibility finding that is exactly the rule that applies in this case there is ample evidence on which the immigration judge could at least question the credibility of the alien in this case the fraudulent documents the inconsistent statement the airport implausible testimony regarding whether other people were arrested at the demonstrations with all of that the immigration d h s attorney could expect cropping evidence and asked for it specifically in the first hearing in june of two thousand and three that may be true with respect to the admission credibility but when it gets to the frivolous application in our case farai in two thousand and three we held that the alien had to have a proper opportunity to explain all discrepancies in the record underlying adverse rather frivolous application finding that didn't happen in this case them were i don't think they all were but you know you also had counsel he didn't complain at the time that he hadn't been offered the opportunity to explain everything that's about all i can say on that point i would also point out that the governor's asserted in a footnote towards the end of the brief that the going to not exhaust that issue there is no mention of the frivolous finding in the proceed brief to the board the petitioner has cited the recent by the board and they effectively adopt all that the i g had to say in that case here however you have a summary of herman's and the b i a regulation specifically say that they're not adopting everything that i g does in that particular case said that his wife had provided documents in addition this court has previously looked to documents that could be obtained from foreign countries to support an adverse credibility finding that was both in the chad chad case and also in the affidavit from her finally regarding his explanation about why he didn't provide that document he was specifically asked why he didn't do that it was the d h s attorney to ask him and his response was he thought that his testimony would be enough well i would point the court to the end of the sidhu decision page this is that too twenty five third ten ninety two and at that point the court said we're going to remain on this case because we'll let the alien explain why he didn't come forward with property of us we've now announced a new standard we would not remain on the case in the future because here we've announced the standard everyone should know get and then the other thing is that the judge did not address why that wasn't the belief but the other thing is is that you know there were things that were led into evidence in this case like this membership card to show that he was involved that he was in the party in light of them saying and i just think that in many in many instances mr perrin is really not was either not confronted or there was just a lot of irrelevant