decision in which the board tramples on the fact finding made by the immigration court on remand instead of a dressing the specific issues do in the wrong case which is pick and choose parts of the record and have that be a basis to reverse the i j a credibility find eggs that that may be true but before we get to  decision what are what are we bound to do what lines are we supposed to put on there are three three three categories of relief and there are different levels of review  status for this individual we think there's still too much of a risk even if we just believe mr chapman and we do believe his present wife and given all that we still don't like it that's a discretionary decision that we could its decision hypothetically they could have written a different decision but they didn't they were a decision that said we believe mr chapman we don't believe the victim we and that is just that's unfortunately but the court can make the agency decide the case on the correct facts and apply the crack law there's a number of legal hours and i also want to talk about the withholding claim w is it the case that deciding whether there's going to be persecution is a question of fact or law the fact finding about you know you might be identified or you may walk in and find  you're having trouble that that may stand but whether that reaches well i have two questions for you first whether the facts put forward are sufficient to meet the preponderance of evidence standard that withholding of the judgments before the court and whether the second question is whether or not the facts found are sufficient maybe this is saying the same thing twice or are really sufficient to say that means the discretionary denial and b i n a and this court case law is clear that there is no jurisdiction to review that matter but how can we why are we free to review errors of war even if we're not free to review the o something that we are entitled to step in and correct had that occurred there would be an error of law for the for this court to review but that's not a code in this case so they say it did occur they say it didn't occur but whether it could be not is a question of to say i saw both testify i thought she was not believable this chapman biased i thought mr he was believable and so i credit that why isn't that classic he said she testimony little weight for several reasons including well they were divorced and the f b i paid her a thousand dollars that is very different from an adverse credibility finding which was not made again twice in th testimony as to whether he watched those who he has that she testified he watched and then the i j a concludes i didn't spend it in his testimony that he did not how is that not a credibility fighting fighter on the scene gives to the people appearing before him or anything is here looking at the two he says i think this one's more believable so i quit that testimony i think this one's opposed assertions i have to pick one i pick a not be how is it quote clearer for the i g to do that and not just you know the b a a not liking it and saying i this gets a little bit tricky and in the fourth hold on let me make sure say are you saying that there were special words that you had to say that she had to say i'm making an adverse credibility finding here and i'm making a positive credibility fine here it's not enough for the i j a to say view from the two witnesses and a decision was made on who was more believable than the other now what i'm having trouble get my head around is since it is a and unfettered matter of you know we think this is clearer because you gave some weight not enough weight and you didn't use the magic words adverse credibility fighting i mean if if if the point of the big ice decision is we still don't like the risk why doesn't t and so theoretically you could do it again right oh i think that there have been now three yeah a decision by i think it's fairly clear that the board will not grant discretionary relief and in this case i can't obviously predict what it would do with future but three times tonight as a matter of discretion i think it's fair to say that a fourth more in front of the board a fourth time that it would again tonight as a matter of discussion what about withholding of remov based on perception that he's a dissident because of his association with this rock and his former roommates responded his residence is likely that he would be forced to confess sentenced to a number of years in abject prison conditions if it is not but it's it then goes on and this is i think a very important point from the second circuit it says although we are reviewing the board's clarity terminations nomo we are not stepping in on behalf of the board or for the board that's just state review is a question of rock that we review race right and she says all the second circuit saying we're going to want to step in and do our own fact finding yes we can look at the record and we can see whether what you did no matter what you called  you could call it whatever you want but if what you were doing was something other than applying clearer view we courts have an opportunity obligation to point that out that's that's our job right yes and in taking how can the board who didn't see him make a judgment that he wasn't worthy of belief when the i j a who did see him said he is worthy of belief if all the word says is we don't believe this is more than just a demeanor finding out of this is the board taking the evidence surrounding bears testimony itself and finding that the idea it aired clearly in a row recently by finding incredible specifically who they have to say don't they have to in order to demonstrate clearly or don't they have to show that there are aspects of the record that undermine what he said there are things that you could look to in the record that would point out that what he said was just complete pertaining to peace he's parents are wealthy and he is a computer guy who came in and it just just nonsense that he had knowledge that later was not true the second application was from that institution called the concord language institute he later admitted i have no idea i don't recall applying to the school and yet eight he submitted a formal he had his friend submitting a form that somehow justified his his extension of nonimmigrant status in that state a third instance of the board revisiting x which testimony is a statement that evidence of a record including testimony from a government agent corroborates protest morning instead which is that crime and videos and other such materials were found agents testimony as to videos related to the shooter department are now in st yes years earlier yes there was no testimony as to consider from the going to go to what is apparently his proclivity to watching and celebrating terrorist videos into that and it's really rather harmless our being you because she identified the website where the offending videos were that she said he made a watch he says in his testimony the judge credited he wasn't sure where he got very