but that's not the standard we don't sustain the agency's decision only if the evidence compels the agency's result it's just the opposite we will find the agency's decision supported by substantial evidence  is the case i often want to be i want to limit its agreement it will say to the extent that the immigration judge and then it will go on but in any event i'd like to focus back on the kind of evidence  support of the actual asylum application itself a different rule and apply and that identification doesn't always go to the heart of the asylum claim in fact that the i a e a in matter of oduya which just cited in the briefs relying on place in any world in our analysis there's not a separate due process claim here so maybe the right answer is no but it does concern me and i'd like you to comment on i think the right answer is no i think that what the sense that one from reading the transcript is that there were a lot of inconsistency if not all of those were mentioned in the i j is a world decision much less than the e i a s decision but there were a number of inconsistency ever date concerning when the petitioners  directly where did you get this document when did you get this document how many times you use document and i think that is revealed if you look at in the record pages and they are fifty one to fifty two perhaps even they are fifty to fifty two and i think that he gave him gave the petitioner an ample and a fair opportunity and i again i believe just on immigration judges decision that they are fifty one where he himself says he's given ample opportunity now course that's just the immigration judges on assessment but i think if you look question about how do we know this goes to the heart of the claim again this court's cases of pretty clearly held that an adverse credibility determination can rest on a counterfeit document even on a single counterfeit document where it's presented in support court very clearly made the distinction that you know you can't rely at brest an adverse credibility determination whether it's the petitioner who's introducing fake documents at the airport to escape persecution literally on the heels of that persecution but grave your question about it's not just the fact that the petitioner here introduced counterfeit evidence is the fact that he continued according to the immigration judge stand by the i a e a to lie about that he testified about that and he was given ample opportunity it's more like anybody's offered up the specific explanation of how it is the laminate can be genuine and not show any signs of having been switched from another car yet the card itself is determined to be counted if you have any other explanation for how that could be the government has  real and the government's counsel pointed out the petitioner never objected to that and had he objected to that the government would have made the preparer of that forensic report available for testimony so i think any steps of traction was waived below really a question of objection it's a question of whether the forensic report is inconsistent internally that it can't rationally support the use conclusion that's really the question not whether there's been a direction to just looking that it is a fake is a counterfeit and provide and reasons provided white namely the seal is missing and as we all know from identification documents and even a driver's license when a seal is missing that's an obvious sign of a counterfeit so i would submit the government would submit that merely the fact that the government cannot explain how there's a limit on it is not dispositive here and there's certainly substantial evidence to for the i j a to have found that the document was a counterfeit and no other result is compelled by the attorney general himself he issued an attorney general opinion would you after the argument hear from the deputy coroner i think she should have some sheets on which you can have a citation for for the panel i'd be happy to also of course