certain items that i think that i need to point out to the court that may have been that need to be focused on a little bit more than what we've already done in our brief and in this case even after reviewing the government's report and with countries well actually when my wife and i go on vacation we've sometimes gone to countries where there are certain parts of the country that we don't go to this is too dangerous or it's not unusual for  general again you know any of us could probably pick up a travel brochure for the philippines that we find some great packages but to the extent that this  general country conditions reports without more from the agency coming forth and saying notwithstanding what has transpired and it still stands for him i don't think that we can actually rely just on those police what happened to him instead he call somebody else and that i was also kind of struck by the business with the white where it looks like he was trying to set up a marriage fraud to stay in the u s and a agency has an obligation to investigate any relationship that is put before them in order to secure benefits of the the legislative intent in having the anti fraud marriage act  attempt to clean house so that the agency had some way to control the number a large number of these petitions that came in and have some type of control in some after someone was married to see their conditional green card but after two years that they would come forth and they would be able to show that it was a bona fide relationship i think that's that's a responsible way to handle immigration to the united states i think to the extent that the an agency representative an immigration judge and that agency representative if he has hard evidence of you well i think has sufficient evidence that he can bring forth a witness and he can put that witness on the stand and he can good because i think it's it helps to alleviate the burden of all these type of many applications means the method that causes problems for everyone and it also gives an opportunity for the respondent before the immigration service to non wife's statement that the marriage was scrotal and i'm sure that the court recognizes that when you're in trial there is you give up the court is well aware of just the deplorable situation in which asylum applications are completed by non attorneys and the fact that so many of them have information that does not they find themselves in a position where they're not they don't have the most complete application with all the information so i've asked in court not to find that there's a lack of credibility simply because the testimony is more expansive  inconsistency throughout his testimony both internally where he doubled back and what out contribution him self as well as inconsistency between his testimony and his asylum applications both of them examining the petitioner and said did you go back to work for the police no never never and so then he said without showing any document he said but didn't you testified in the style of officer that you had gone back led a raid an investigation and a raid and then there was a a gun battle and the response was the response was yes that's that was what i was thinking of like how they call like a revenge thing so he is now ten seconds after saying that he never went back to work he's now and now trying to figure out how he answers this question he's admitting that he has testified previously this way immigration judge is fighting in particular where he was asked whether he engaged in a gun battle and that's a record that one seventy one seventy one and his testimony that he couldn't remember and i think that's what's significant with this testimony that he didn't recall i mean one seventy one right now this is a question posed to him sir did you or did you not go back three days after you were released if you were to have what you would know one way or another if days or weeks before you left the philippines fearing for your life you would recall one where the other whether you want went back to the police station you worked at and to if you're telling the truth until you would certainly remember whether or not you were in a gun battle and whether or not you let a raid it is not the kind of thing that any honest person with forget i would also no a witness but this is of course a page after he says that at the top of one seven he says that they never got back in touch with me i just told them what happened to me and then nobody got in touch with me and then he asked did you ever go back to work for them he said no now the document and i'm a little far afield from the answering judge nelson's question which is you said is it improperly used incessant and the answer is no for two reasons one if it was n he was a proponent it's not the proponent he was a proponent of that exhibit and if you look at the record at page one seventy two the i j a said what is this asylum officer doing in the record and the  actually i have to stop mr hart oh from continuing to advocate on behalf of this document and so it is fundamentally wrong for him to now say that was improperly used when he was if not the sole proponent a proponent of it and there's more because this is an evidentiary issue that should have been raised with the board of immigration appeals and i should have made this argument first but it's not in our brief and i polish just for that but it is the jurisdictional argument he  grammys with respect to this document he has never raised it as an issue to the board of the immigration the board members an appeals order the immigration judge and so this court is precluded from considering the issue under eight us really your honor  would like to get back to the adverse credibility and know several instances in the in the record which are serious inconsistences which also go to the heart of the to the immigration judge mentioned i think are clear and we discussed the first in our died he says several times record in particular at one twenty three he says he learned two to three weeks after their death no two to three weeks after he was released from custody he learned that they die which is i think by itself a bit on the outlandish side because he wasn't out of the country it's it's absurd to suggest that he couldn't have found this out earlier and then he realizes this ninety page one sixty eight he says he found out a day or two after and one question about that he says well their de confirmed two or three weeks later course they'd already been buried because they were muslim and he testified that they were buried the same day there are there are inconsistency as i see them running low on time but i would note this at record one thirty