because this is a document that is dated on the day he was would have been admitted and says he was treated for a week and it has it's only diagnoses general body pain and left here injury and his testimony is that he was stabbed in the knees i believe and that's would seem interesting and was not mentioned why isn't that enough to support an adverse credibility determination under is substantial evidence to enter you're  find that the adverse credibility determination is not clearly erroneous based on this document and then they say for example and then they listen things i am limited only the one piece the sub argument of that particular point that they have identified when they're saying the whole finding is not clearly erroneous is that right well you're in a very very good to say that i james whole finding with regard to the medical would be compelled to find this to be iranian i mean under the clearly under the substantial evidence standard that we have to agree with your reading of this document as opposed to the ye why the position that we're getting right now is rich regard to the security requirements of the zoom meeting for purposes of these hearings that it is a relatively in secure means honor i i understand your position entirely and i know that i don't know if it's an issue with regard to the security requirements on our d o j access for example i t requirements i'm able to do so or it's based solely on security and whether or not they are secure or they  is i was getting into the assist substantial evidence here supports the agency's adverse credibility finding i think what's important to recognize is that this really is a totality of the circumstances case when you a question about those who are at  copy in the record is always also the copy that i have your honor and and that is correct with regard to that particular with regard to the particular juror at situation as far as there are no initials so that statement is inaccurate i do not i have based based upon my my looking at the record right now at st glance i do not see any initials again i have the same exact precise record as you do your honor so i do not see that i don't think it undermines the reliability of that document you put a lot of weight on the fact that he's you know he  explain whether or not that was indeed an inconsistency whether or not he did not sign that particular document whether or not he did not review that particular document and that was all done before the immigration judge be it without counsel and he he he responded in the affirmative i will respectfully i can see the issue with regard to he says i don't know why it was put there but he does indicate that he he he had the opportunity to read and review the document i think what's most important with regard to that consistency your honour's is that as the immigration judge recognizes in the record and they are forty five is that he was initially non responsive when sort of pressed on hearing i do not dispute the fact that your honor that there is a hearing impairment and that is evident in the particular record i will invite this court's attention to reading the entire record as though there's never there was not an objection or any concern or any issue with regard to translation or a lack of understanding throughout the entire process in fact but there were answer know now and i do understand that concern your honor and i think that's one of the aspects really of the real id act we have to take into consideration here is we are looking at what is in fact a cold black and white record here and we have to play some deference to the immigration judge which i think the real id does appropriately to sort of make these determinations and how the real i d act came in and said based upon the t circumstances there's really no indication that there was any specific issue with regard to question any answer in fact i think the immigration judge actually yes your honor looking at the  saying i think this harkens sort of back to the initial question i will say the agencies here not require the right in existence on everything but actually considered all the evidence but what we have here is a dispositive adverse credibility determination so based specifically on petitioners testimony here he was determined to be adversely credible so the argument there too is well irrespective and i am not conceding that the agency did not take into account going to country conditions evidence but seriously in this particular since that instance the country conditions evidence on there are relevant because even if they were all true based upon his entire totality of his testimony including the medical document which i'll get to in one moment if i have a moment here that he was adversely credible so based upon that that was really the death knell right this was the dispositive issue in this particular case although the i j a went further to be i only  affirmed the adverse credibility determination which takes me back just one step to the initial question posed to petitioner on the scope of review i would i i would respectfully disagree with petitions contention on the scope or review here and i we have in our brief flores lopez versus holder there were the board issues its own decision but relies in part on the immigration judge's reasoning we review both decisions now to the extent that that was adopted and i think if you look at  respondent not credible and then they then they go into to discussing specific aspects and actually referring to the record so what's our position under flores lopez with regard to those specific portions finding the respondent not credible based on the out for mentioning concerns we find no clear citizen limited to at least for now we have the further argument that even as to those four we can only do this because if it points i'm not sure i agree specifically what is referenced here in and i think if you look at the i g s decision pages that are referenced here in and that's really what i pull out in my brief in the respondents brief and that's what we rely on and i would go further to your subsequent question the is that titian is reliance's that we can only we're only concerned with the date on the medical record i think it's not supported either by flores lopez that's cited in my brief nor by the very decision of the of the b i a here which cite right there's there is no indication here in the record that it is it is a forgery meaning there is no evidence in the record that he had to create w yeah well i think what it is again it's not looking at that document in a vacuum but on the totality of the circumstances he's coming in and approach and if there isn't there's no dispute that he was in this office and i will for the point of for purposes of discussion that he was in this hospital news document was was referenced was was was brought up but he states he discusses a period of a lengthy period of time he discusses stab wounds he discusses being discharged seven days after the document is prepared and when you take that now he remains i'm sorry your honor wasn't and i understand and then there's no question with regard to your could your concerns or your statements with regard to that i think what's important is again we're looking at this black letter piece of paper and saying well it says x but when you compare that to the why of petitioners testimony they don't line up and as a result we can't come in and i i would invite this court not to  village defending the agency's no no in defending the agency's decision here talk about the injuries he suffered and i don't believe that it's our position and the i agree with the agency here that these these these conditions don't line up but what he's saying so very well could have been that he went to the hospital if we don't dispute that that doesn't necessarily suggest that he was beat maybe he got into a motorcycle accident went into this went to the ho know i i understand your concerns and with this document your honor and i do understand your concerns and i think that again you know really foresee or are looking back on it now with black and white on these documents there is an issue with regard to whether or not it can be perceived in a different manner but again i think the real i id act instructs this court to look at the totality of the circumstances here does this compel a contrary conclusion or that we just is just our opinion that we could it could be read differently based upon the record and i think looking at the black and white record the agency the industry made an appropriate decision here in the partition for real reviews should be with regard to i believe it's you know it's an interesting question your honor and they are required to to consider the documents that were put before them and that's our opinion the position that they have been they have considered all the documents that were put before d them but but for this individual's adverse credibility that that he would have gone he would have had a successful application but really this individual for what other reason based upon the totality of the circumstances just interview and his testimony so i would consider that one that he's a practicing christian that was not harmed or recruited his father was also a limit on a practicing christian not harm the recruited by p s s to the issue with regard to his uncle alfred who was also men day and whether or not he acted bravely or there was a bribery involved three and the medical documentation of thank you this inconsistency that they were against them is not enough to support or adverse credibility running under the real i d act and that his explanation that he doesn't know why it was there is an explanation that it be i ignore it when the