asylum if you take away the multitude of pages on credibility and therefore the board should have clarified why she was why they were denying and i think i hear you saying th has to tell the lower court why it's reversing and i think i don't know exactly why he did the footnote though it seems to violate the regulation does say two reasons given don't count this one count that way so we wouldn't have any problem with that if it came back simply saying the same thing they say here with regard to the second alternative round that's correct how about the merits of it you know we see the silent cases all the time where you see some terrible things t mischaracterized that traffic accident i mean even if it began as a traffic accident where she talked about the petitioner colliding with the army truck which was a physically impossible you know was stopped and the truck collided with him but even if  ur characterization weren't grossly inaccurate the fact is that the army got out of the track several more soldiers yelled at him kicked his car kicked him in their heavy boots is quite mannus thing it sounds like road rage i man in heavy army boots with guns yelling at me kicking you particularly in the aggregate judging them analyze each one of these incidents as if it were just one single incident but if you look at you know the know what significance repatched to the fact that he went back to his wife told him that things were getting better but clearly in fact they were not so the fact that he returned i don't think diminished is his fear if you've been told well things are getting better and then they're wrong but i think the court can understand dander impute that you know he loved his family very much and was very very difficult to live in exile and he came back because he thought that things were getting better and if that was true it would be worth returning that this and in fact i think that substantiates has been his they didn't come here for any reason other than they could no longer safely live in their home country but there that wasn't the  breaking the one thousand and eighty seven incident where they beat him sexually assaulted his wife they stole from him he went to the police the next day to report it and it said those same three army soldiers were him you know in the indians should go home only christians are allowed in fiji you should go back to india or become a question and then they then there was this incident in one thousand nine hundred four where they petitioners family still lives in fiji and they're fine they're just afraid of losing their lives that's no big deal but in fact your honor that that's a very big deal  you about the procedural or the concern that we have with regard to the b i use decision which does appear due to conflict with the regulation and in doing something more than stating a firm without opinion what should we do about that nothing what but what is under review is the alternative finding which has to stand on its own legs without any reference to what recedes and which was not affirmed and the fact finder offers  alternative this this is art you know not unusual at all for fact finders to make alternative findings fortunately this one did and denominated it as such and offered several reasons why assuming he's assuming credible that he found the the evidence not and that is before the court  that's what's under review and i guess i would say does is there is there any indication then that the previous finding which was the credibility finding is not are not is there any indication that the credibility various reasons in the alternative y d the principal incident in eighty seven did not rise to the level of persecution and whatever it was it was not on account of a cognizable reason for silence and then he discounts the other two incidents as episodic and  sense something that shows absolutely no interest in this man by the government or any other group  these are examples of communal conflict that's ongoing and will never stop the situation in fiji has normalized in fact it got back to normal or started getting back to normal in the context of a coup more or less errant common soldiers intent on looting and get enriching themselves under the circumstances  and that's what he based it on decision and i believe they changed the word lies corrected that may have definite hurt negative credibility finding may have definitely influenced that incorrect characterization of the facts for example calling it episodic when the police officer petitioner the last time that he complained about the army assaulting him on the road that petitioner should start making these police complaints because he was just making things worse for himself i mean every single time t of the individual hearing she doesn't want to write about anything that's in the declaration of course you can talk about if you want to but she wants to hear new things and that petitioners should really  to adding anything else that they haven't put into the declaration i think that's outside of the scope of what you argued but you're you're you're out of time anyway thank you very much to both sides of the case just argued