on the idea denied the application on the basis of an adverse credibility finding the i g noted that the claim before the asylum officer was inconsistent with the want to pursue that the hearing we are not persuaded by the respondents explanation for the discrepancy what that means to me is the i k says i don't believe him because he told two different stories on appeal he provides an explanation for why he told different stories the v f one agent for why he told different stories and we were not persuaded by it to me that means that the vi a went through an intellectual process different from the i've changed and at the end of the day board's decision i can see where it could go either way in this case and you could believe the man and think he gave a pretty good reason why he lied to the to the asylum officer or he could disbelieve them and it seems to me if you can go either way on a then the substantial evidence standard is met under elias saccharine yes and we have to defer to  sense is we just don't think he's credible so you don't have to pick out this and that and say we believe this but we're not sure that it's know that i could get asylum if i was gay and i didn't want to admit that i was gay person might be persecuted what seems to me that backfire motivation would equally justif and make themselves known quickly and not remain in the shadows which he did however he wasn't equipped to properly represented their own interests and made and agree language that relates to a discretionary determination the judge talks about how he's a person who's not of good moral character and grounds how a person shouldn't be able to just come to this country and reasonable never thought a good moral character reference i think if a person lies on his asylum application the dishonesty is a marker for character i thought that's what the i j a was saying well and and we all may green on that but does that mean that he's lying about his homosexuality and about what took place in guatemala i mean i think the question is is he lying about his sexual orientation and about what happened the applicant is lying about a matter of medical concern to his application that will support negative credibility finding and when i think i hear you thing is that other adjective a person might want to put on it it was not done because the person intended to be it's hard to get away with something it was done for self protection and if one looks at it reasonable and if it was reasonable it should be accepted i mean there are examples throughout history people that told all kinds of li homosexuals that he believed he was in imminent danger and in florida you know frankly that the government's to take the position that homosexuality is somehow you know not explanation for why when he initially came to this country he just didn't volunteer and by the way i am a homosexual and that's why i'm here and so he said are as things and i guess a subsequent testimony that is sufficient to sustain a credibility determination that is that he has a sufficient articulation to sustain a credibility determination that's what happened here in fact it was even worse here he lied under oath twice it's more than significant and material discrepancies to why he could made up an entire story and as a judge kleinfeld noted that does not provide the in the government's view that that was correct as well and i'm happy to discuss that as well if the court court wishes but i think part of indicated he lie he lied under oath twice no judge very few judges are going to believe anything an individual states after they lie under oath twice they have to come up with a pretty gosh darn good story and excuse forward in his direct testimony to indicate that his new story was different from his old story didn't at all come forward it wasn't until he was on cross examination when the ins attorney said well didn't you lie under oath twice one speck of evidence to support that other than his own speculation he didn't speak to any policeman he didn't speak any government officials he spoke to the only people he spoke to were were people who hung out in a gay asylum claim because nothing that martinez says it's credible on account of his having lied under oath twice period end of story well now you're going off on this riff about how there's not an adequate foundation to show that homosexuals as a group are persecuted in guatemala and i'm thinking why well what do we care asylum that the credibility is the only reason and the be a decision so