for among other reasons ignoring to cooperate in evidence yes he had made the same mistake again i don't really matter there was only one question beatty had to answer does the cooperate in the evidence in the record sufficiently still ok your honor i am in a limited contact with him i have submitted the briefings to him to look at beforehand so i know he is alive he tells me he's hiding  tattoos and potential affiliation with the gang which isn't obvious when looking at the tattoo although so that the question then i guess it's really focused on the cooperate in evidence on because if you find that they cooperat individuals submitted sworn affidavits and three of these individuals submitted letters none of these people related parties in addition to the mother and the search testified in front of the agency and submitted new letters and these members based on their outward appearance through tattoos so that part of his story has additional cooperated in evidence there that other courts have recognized and the third risk he faces is some other games too like the police aren't able to differentiate him from a current or former gang member and this kind of testimony doesn't come just from francisco it comes from all the different people who cooperated his testimony now the government complains that some of the letters  his mother with the immigration judge the proposition that you know he's badly treated in el salvador and can expect to be there everybody else is to that that he's really just the same boat so general testimony that francisco was being targeted because he refused to rejoin the game that rock broke through his window standing alone perhaps doesn't show a person if you were to worry about it but that's not the question the agency court repealed and taking the courts now says a step brother it also shouldn't matter if the court actually appoints jule represents the petition the court appeals well let me just say i mean obviously generic sense but you say who but i don't see that problem here i mean this court had an earlier opinion we indicated what the agency had to do it went back evidence and i don't you build things up one step at a time you had to show that he was in prison he has good evidence that he was in prison he doesn't get out until his mother paced that bright that's not the end of the case but isn't it an important building block just when they don't talk about something as important as not his letter i think you worry would they have come to the same conclusion if we knew that they didn't really grappled with it well maybe with respect that they s thank you your honor there is two or three points i'd like to make during this rebuttal and i want to start with the government giving short shrift the importance of on his two thousand and sixteen letter it wasn't just that it cooperates he was in jail liability that makes the hearsay credible in this case the agency just said this evidence is hearsay and from the outset we're going to get a little waiving the questioning that the agency needs to ask you know this is hearsay but is it may be true francisco disagrees with the government that this court cannot grant relief directly this time there's a couple factors that are important to consider could i just interrupt you there and say that in the credible he's just asking for the parts that are corroborated to be considered and those are significant parts of the government mentions that you know the searching never harmed francisco there are ignoring the evidence in the record about the pistol whipping to the