reasonable evidence and substantial evidence that the man was persecuted and there is one legal issue intertwined with that and that's the issue of whether he applied within one year of his admission to the united states decision so it's conceivable we want to hear your argument but it's conceivable we may have to put off or deferred submission with respect to that issue depending on whether we feel five all those cases involve a clear clearly on the record that the person filed late and whether there was exceptional circumstances to excuse it this case different from those in as much as there is no clear external evidence other than the testimony of mr of deal as to when he entered the united states the immigration judge concluded that he didn't find him credible and therefore said he didn't meet his burden on that issue however it's not clear to me from the record that he made the final finding that he was ineligible for asylum trickly on that basis because he went on after he noted that he didn't meet his burden and that there was a burden he had to meet to talk more about discretionary issues so there's a wash over here between the discretionary issues and this one year issue now if this court were to strictly decide that the immigration judge is finding this issue even though not completely articulated means that this court is away if we just decide that the immigration judge can say i don't believe that he was here for the right amount of time now well what was the immigration judge have to decide what specifically what kind of findings would sustain a determination that he was too late well that seems to me there are several different ways that a person can apply for asylum once he comes to the border with a with with false documents or just saying i want to silence and then we know when he hits the united states because he's there at the border by an officer of people we don't have that here the other way would be somebody flies into an airport with a proper visa and then decides that he wants to ask for asylum and then we get in we have a clock start and we know the fourth way is somebody comes into the united states stealth and then it's up to the alien to show that he came to the united states and he's also up for the alien to show that he deserves asylum he's he's here the issue is when he came here now if he doesn't have evidence as to when he came here because as in this case the smuggler destroyed his documents and all that the same issues about his credibility that go through the validity of his a when you came into the united states therefore you're not eligible for asylum case closed out of my circuit can't go to court of appeals because there's a bar and that's the end of it and all your determining credibility of somebody then the last over a fact of saying because we don't believe other things that you say therefore you're not eligible for silence shouldn't apply and there is precedent for that in the court then where this court found that an immigration judge improperly at the side of the someone was an alien smuggler therefore decided she didn't have a good character and that issue was not reviewable of the issue of the character however this court said and regrettably i have to send you the cite this court said that because there was a false finding about the alien smuggling there's a wash over and therefore this case needs to go back to the judge with an understanding that this court finds her credible on certain issues and based on that finding of credibility now you need to consider the if that finding with in conjunction with the other findings that she left she lacks an element that this court is unable to to review because of the jurisdictional bar by congress so i think that that kind of reasoning is instructive here at this court finds that what the immigration judge did in saying you don't have a story a plan of action people can get into the united states with fake documents somehow you're here in the united states but it doesn't make sense to me how you docking here and therefore i don't believe anything about you when the man is probably a somali who came to the united states and its here and speaks somali and then if those things are a problem then this court certainly it seems to me should be able to send the case back to the immigration judge to say the man is credible and therefore you leave the term and your one finding that bars us because we find that he affect the facts would not affect the fact that this court still doesn't have jurisdiction over the finding that he failed to file his asylum application within one year of his arrival in the united states because that is still a factual adverse credibility determination here the immigration judges denial of asylum was based on a factual adverse credibility deterministically what bothers me about the credibility issue as a whole it's one thing to have some doubt about details of his travel but how far does it extend and does that affect everything else about his application of what happened in somalia what  solace at four hundred thirty twelve it still has just action over the denial of withholding and torture convention protection because the average credibility determination one throughout the course and it's still that was one of the major bases of the average credibility determination the immigration judge then also noted that there were significant discrepancies concerning how he eventually left kenya and came to the united states and he found completely incredible his version of somebody hiring the alien smuggler he didn't know who it was he didn't know any information about the passport under which he travels he can remember the name he can remember whether there were visas in the passport details which the immigration judge reasonably concluded that somebody would know he was undertaking this major journey and that it was unbelievable that if he is offensive really transpired as he said they did initially wouldn't kno information it's not just that he couldn't remember what or why he traveled on but he told the asylum officer he traveled on one airline and then he told the immigration judge during the hearing that he traveled on a different airline he was that inconsistent as to what happened when he got to mexico how much time he spent in mexico where he stated how he got from mexico city to wanna and then the final piece of that was his entry into the united states which again the immigration judge found to be incredible  that have to do with other parts of credibility and what kinds of documents you have to provide but those provisions are in a flexible here so the only part that would be immediately  they go to a material part of his asylum application that ever credibility determination can carry over into the withholding and torture convention areas because the average credibility determination has to do with his credibility as a whole court is just reviewing the withholding in torture convention application about and four if you know the record the court will find that the summary that the asylum officer used to which the immigration judge used to rely on shows major discrepancies from his own notes for example his notes say that different friends and relatives gave him money and then in the summary he writes that he got all the money for his travelling from his friend home and there's other examples of that too the other consistency was that the officer the questions come out consistently as him saying that he learned later that she was raped but at the time she told him that men tried to rape her and so they asked and what did she say at that what did she tell you and so they tried to rape me and then my father your father wanted to protect me and he was killed so i think if you look at the temper of temporality is in those sections you'll see that that the asylum officer