jailed for one night and tortured in one nine hundred ninety three he was again arrested along with his father and a number of their friends all members of the national league for democracy the n l d he again was held on over one night interrogated and  two things stand out at me and reading the judge's decision number one he made absolutely not one single reference to country conditions in burma in fact the odd thing is that the state department country condition reports w never introduced into evidence by either side i have taken the liberty of calling the report for two thousand and one issued in two thousand and two just before the hearing poor human rights record and long standing severe repression of its citizens continue doing the year citizens continue to be subject at any time without appeal to the arbitrary and sometimes brutal dictates of the military they do not have the right to change their government credible reports of extra good judicial killings and right arbitrary arrest and detention for expressing our dissenting political views continue to be a common practice console assuming it's not a nice country let's just say to the argument couple things concerning me this was a case where he was found not to be credible yes and the i g gave a number of reasons why he didn't think he was credible and we've held a number of times it just takes one reason one of them is good enough and goes to the heart of his claim not doesn't as i'm looking at the briefs on appeal to us i don't see any discussion of the i j s determination against credibility on the basis that this guy was travelling all over the world and had a bunch of chances to stop off in the us or mexico and didn't take advantage and the the thought that the demonstration that he was which he was apparently a very minor part but they pick him up again based on that apparently and question of what happened at that demonstration and where did the other guys go out i don't see that issue discussed in the brief before us nor do i see it discussed in the bri before the d i m a but my question is we've got at least those two couple of things that seem to be i j prof's according to the i j how do we do  in reverse order your honor to go into second arrest you seem to be reading from jay's opinion more than from the record the i j a made his decision that day you claim they arrested you because of this prior participation five years ago and by asking questions about people running off into the wilderness five years ago that absolutely was not the testimony and the art responded state and that is at page one eighty six he stated that he and his father were l d s members that the government had arrested a number of n l b members that day they came to the house of his father and he and searched that was an improper ground and even puts the dia i don't really see that a sin in the brief on appeal actually here so my question is if that if i assume the moment that's valid grounds no we've attacking think not i think the i think when you challenge something for the board you've got to say like you would say to us the i g found up in his findings the reasons one two three four five and six six reasons and the board was wholly fouled up on bases one two three and four i don't the board has to go beyond look for morons there's anything our law says now i believe there's a little word i believe that the board seaman who is legally aboard a ship working making money but who is from a country that has persecuted him to jump off that ship at the first available opportunity enter a country illegal as a ship jumper and apply for asylum frankly i think it would be a fool to jump ship and apply for asylum in china singapore malaysia none of those countries have any kind of a record whatsoever i'm talking about his i think i do through two stops in mexico and the united states and again i would say the same thing what obligation is placed on him by a wall to a mediately in spain are trying to persecute and kill me and beat me and put me in prison and i get out today to go to the united states around asia where his choices of applying for asylum of those aforementioned countries he went back because any testified number one his mother was sick number two he was hoping after two years that see things would be better in burma when he he testified things were not better instead he got these letters from the from the government organization and his next trip out of the country was to the united states where he caught a ship and did a cruise back and forth to mexico about hear from the government please the court kristin edison for the attorney general in order to succeed on his petition three days is there must demonstrate that the record compels reversal of the immigration judge's decision denying him asylum on adverse credibility grounds however here at the record clearly does not compel a reversal of the immigration judge's decision first as your honor pointed out with regards to the discussion on the state department report i'd like to emphasize that although it appears on the record that the state department report was submitted but is not contained in the record in fact it does that mean that the state department report is not there not a harmless error because as his honor pointed out the immigration judge's decision was based on the fact that petitioners testimony the finding of petitioners testimony was not credible and i can all agree prose a pretty pretty conditioner's receipt of two letters seven years later that supposedly required him to join an organization supporting burma's military government garrets respondents position that the immigration judge  role specific grounds for the average credibility finding including as your honor pointed out petitioner's testimony that he had numerous opportunities to seek asylum before he did so in the united states and specifically with regard to his opportunities in two thousand and one he additionally testified that he was four times mean added states and twice and mexico that's just in two thousand one before he decided to file for asylum in addition petitioner the immigration judge based his advice credibility finding on his failure to produce letters from the u in the question of credibility as is the petitioner to testify truthfully i'm not sure i see the correlation you may say well i should have come you could've come earlier speculating  were his points but the key question is to say i don't think this person is telling the truth and it just seemed to me that the restitution the fact that he had opportunities may or may not have it didn't seem to me to go to the fact that he was he testified about that i just don't believe that i did believe him about that i understand your point your honor but i think that it goes to the overall credibility of petitioners claim and the immigration judge i believe highlighted  and the immigration judge concluded that testimony was that the friend refused to bring the letters but did agree to bring a birth certificate and a security card of some sort relatively benign documents different from  and the third thing is on the first arrest the judge comes in and you never told us about all of this is torture and there's no explanation for that explanation is that he was never asked to explain