mr rive misrepresented it to us when he left india again this is incorrect mr wright never did misrepresent when he left india and again i don't think and to the extent that we mr rice attempt to some little self to the process could be viewed as that adverse credibility factor i think it's completely mitigated in this case because mr rice testimony was so detailed it was so consistent neither the immigration court or the be a found any flaw in his testimony denial in this case are that negative exercise discretion is more pronounced because the immigration court actually did exercise favorable discretion with regard to this question relief for mr right and and think it was not true that this misrepresentation was named the only who did in fact use one name when he came into the country in one thousand nine hundred two he used another when he applied for asylum two i asked and he didn't actually even acknowledge that he had  both names until he amended his nine hundred ninety four asylum application two years later in one thousand nine hundred six before the immigration court at that time and when he filed in to make an amendment to this application itself when he came before the immigration judge before he actually testified had he in effect come clean on these two points when he appeared at an initial hearing with the immigration judge your honor in   one day before your honor yes so before he took the stand the immigration judge where there he was admitting that he had used the alias and misrepresented because she had been advised that it might be better for him and that he should wait until he got an attorney to make clear who it was but he also misrepresented that to his attorney because when he filed his asylum application in  question of whether an individual is eligible for asylum and whether they have been a victim of past persecution is necessarily bound up in the questions that we might not simply to their alleged treatment in the country from which they're seeking refuge but to the way in which they left that country came to this country and how they have represented the totality of the circumstances in which they find themselves before the immigration court well if we excluded potentially out of status to apply for asylum the difference there would be you would not in all instance they would have somebody who made significant and repeated misrepresentations i think to indicate that that's not relevant reward case of information to the immigration court i don't think anyone is suggesting through their questions that it's not relevant the question is how does that relate to the merits of the asylum coin that is the circuits case i do understand the question right the government's position is that it relates to the asylum claim because the question of whether someone is eligible for style in most not simply their treatment within their country but the method in which they start to seek refuge from that treatment leave their we no longer ask a question about how they got into this country it depends on the particular case in this case the nature of the representation at first he entered with inspection and then he entered without inspection is necessarily bound up and never asked me if when and how reconsider the credibility determination but the question on whether the motion to reopen would be granted relies on the wife's petition he said petition for her husband the petition it's not granted or you consider that it would also consider however your honor the question the character of the petitioner in deciding whether to grant the motion to reopen the case the underlying claim is about whether he would be eligible to adjust based on the i will take care of that ok thank you