that he had not satisfied that deliberate fabrication finding that it was not absolutely or that it was altered in any way so i think that once once responded crawford the document turned it over to the service of the service and at that point responded had and then he talks about giving the real possibility of fabricated fabrication and embellishment so your argument is the less he made a finding absolutely that it was a fabrication than a can't be represented to the court at the time that there was no original referring to the arrest warrant then in the very next paragraph he says after the recess respondent surprised everyone in the court by saying that she did have the original in that she had the original in her house here in the united states why why can't we look at that evidence and conclude that based upon her misrepresentation to the immigration judge that substantial evidence supports his finding better testimony was not credible without regard to whether or not we need to conclude that the document was a complete fabrication i would argue that it does not go to the heart of the asylum determination the production of the original arrest warrant which she is arguing is the basis for a finding that she's been persecuted because of her political affiliation and when that's the underlying reason for the issuance of the warrant doesn't the i j a say that goes to the about it within a few hours that same day they actually brought the original to the court i think the reason why it was a change in the testimony was because on the record there occurred a discussion about the need for it to be forensic testing in her interest there was a copy already in the record the record itself did not change whether it was a copy or an original i agree that there is in this statement on the record but i think that it was explained by her if you look at the situation with the refugees they often have difficulty especially when the opposition party is in control of their doctor their government to get an arrest warrant meaning from a law enforcement agency and that government would be almost copy of it so that would be our position with regards to th and speculated that a rape victim would not immediately go and straight out certificate from the medical profession that was those speculation that he made there are also several other missions that he noted with regards presumably to the sexual situation that she was recounting details of sexual assault and was not exactly forthcoming about about the fact that she was pregnant while she was attacked with should not be held against her and finally i just point out that the the i j a failed to satisfy that al original yes but it about the warrants and that means that she found out about it and margin nine hundred ninety eight only after she had only after is being informed by her parents or by her father and yet the letters from forthcoming on everything else because you just gave you just gave the reason which is what is counsel her counsel is arguing little a woman who has been raped may have some sensitivities about discussing particularly with a male judge and i'm hearing more like that reason in her mind produced and then she but she was forthcoming about everything else why does that one of the missing justifying basically finding the entire testimony about the rape not cr frivolous makes it happen actually fabricated now he says for the same reasons i find she has filed the frivolous application yeah the same reasons are where he says it's i'm going to admit it but give it a dictates these orders right after the hearing and then based on these initials occasionally he goes back and make corrections so he had an opportunity if he wanted to to to rewrite the earlier the record of proceedings and any date that on of it my understanding is that they don't think this comes to them after the fact of the printed version and then that's what they do is go through and edited but your understanding is that if he wanted to go back to reading it in france and say oh the first part of this order needs to be stronger if i'm going to support my finding a frivolous mess he can't do that things are how the family would have been able to procure that arrest warrant so there's a high level of speculation and i would just finally note that at the very beginning of that record the judge notes that that he almost applies a higher level of and i would note that the cases do not support denial on the basis of mere omission that is not material to the underlying thing ok thank you very much counsel on both sides we thank you for your argument the case just argue