talking about is the i j a did indicate that there was this previous ruling and that that was some to take into account but independently consider the evidence that your client put on that he was a following go practitioner and the evidence that was put on is pretty sketchy a photograph a long distance his own testimony a website that doesn't even mention his  claim and the ninth circuit did not say you could explore the adverse credibility finding into the cat analysis because there are two different standards and cat involves a different consideration and that's why you have the decision from us that you have which is upholding the average credibility and the denial of their claims for asylum withholding country report so you could consider that this person was going to be more likely than not tortured for purposes of analyzing the cat kind and still believe that bonafide falun gong practitioner and perhaps not believe that he would it's more likely than not that he would be tortured upon removal to the people's republic of china because there is evidence in the record really who it is or what they're doing and certainly not close enough for instruction you also have a website that was supposed to be the basis for attracting students but his name wasn't there and his answer to that was well in my fixtures there well how do you tell anything there but bottom line is all over lead does clearly does not overrule any of our other cases it simply says that the implication of dishonesty in testimony  in whatever part of the case can be taken into account when i and i j is ruling false in one false in all that's the concept and in this case the i j a made a determination that that your didn't adequately cat analysis d so the argument by your opposing counsel is that she was necessarily prevented from doing that because she was she was tainted so should it should she have did do you think she made an independent finding of avarice credibility or do you think she just viewed it as substantial evidence in support the conclusion that our that the evidence of fr record this is the i j a is decision she says and i quote however refrain back the ninth circuit decision noting that the adverse credibility fine does not necessarily preclude relief under the convention against torture and noting as well  the immigration judge did not address the count country condition reports or other evidence of flagrant violations of human rights against felon going practitioners the court remanded the case for full consideration of the cat claim that's what the i j a second i j said so is it fair to say the least based upon what said there that the idea was certainly aware that it had been remastered to consider the case under cat and to make an independent determination under that regard  inter could week it further examine what the record to make our own determination about whether or not it's more likely that he would be tortured if he were returned to china i think the proper course  determine should be removed were fairly gone and any number of other people number one if that's true what role if any should that played in our determination should play no role i don't believe that that is true