just could not understand how the petitioner could claim that he was held from behind while laying on the floor and and why he was being beaten now in the petition i testified during this direct and cross that his findings lack of credibility findings that you think were merely credited client are several things that the judge lifted and i can go through them one by one one of them was the fact that the judge from us you with a number of times the petition the transported political activists the rallies and another one was what i consider to be speculations how would the police know for instance that the petition i was planning or the petition i was going to transport a political activist during an upcoming demonstration and finally the judge said  that the petitioners claim was not plausible because he was not a member of a political organization or party now regarding the fact that the petition and transported individuals to a rally the number of times he this is an event that takes place every year is the republic day of india it takes place on the twenty sixth of january every year the police know that this political activists do these demonstrations and even if they didn't know that the of a political organization or party again is speculation because you don't have to be a member of a political organization to support a political cause or to transport individuals for that matter to a political rally and the judge by well i think extrinsic evidence would be needed for that conclusion to be made for example the police did not or the record does not contain any information whether or not the police found weapons on d he didn't certify them it's his burden to present in the regulations require certified documents he did not present certified documents there was he did not request that they be sent for forensics he's speaking to shift the burden of proof which was five years after the law had changed would be on a form that had been obsolete before nineteen years before it was issued was it surprising that a truck driver couldn't explain that it's surprising that he would present it yes it is uncertified or unreliable documentation yes everything comes into question because nothing he has said is credible the driver's license it was much more than counsel present the driver's oral argument that maybe he didn't articulate himself but he had an attorney he didn't present the argument below and his attorney didn't take the time to say well maybe this is what he meant and draw that testimony out of him but it wasn't just on the detention  everything he presented a driver's license well that it was a copy of the driver's license and he said i left my truck driver's license with some unnamed relatives this is just my small driver's license driver's license or issue for twenty years for ten he's wrong when he's presented he changes his testimony when he's presented with an inconsistency he says you don't have to tell you don't have to prove your age then he said you have to prove your age i have to be sixteen i was sixteen when i got the lice identity and i just want to say something that disturbed me here and maybe you can provide some explanation on at least two occasions the immigration  speculating as to why the evidence might not be credible for example in one point she says well in mexico notaries or formal and educated and they would never have a typo in their notary stamp therefore i in effect say the same thing in india but we're only evidence when we don't know in india we don't know in rural india what happened so that's one thing and then another one she says well the letter for the doctor comes india but he misspell knees and he must speak english because he signs everything was there for you know why the why is there the spelling and the thing that is a little troubling about that is kind of imposing a high level american bureaucratic standard which with the credibility part aside because now if he doesn't have some credibility certainly has to produce some additional documents ok well the notarized documents that was not the strongest part of her just believe it was also two documents attorney who issued two completely two documents which were completely which were issued at the same time but with different typos in different form but it made no sense and again this is not someone who's testifying credibly otherwise this is someone who is coming from a region where by the way there there is no more you know please keep in mind that the immigration judge also found that there was a possibility that he could relocate  you're saying is that even if he had established what had happened that he would fail on the second prong because of the ability to relook salute absolutely and there's no well