ninth circuit is wrong and they change the law to make it clear that where corroboration might reasonably be available it can be required and credibility average acted if it wasn't there however  what we believe to be the case law which is that so that when there is a legitimate reason given for lack of credibility of zen the immigration judge yes the the other point that i would make is that that there was a footnote dropped recently in a very recent case we brought up in our supplement to the record for that that the i think the immigration judge could rely upon the lack of corroboration as further damaging the credibility of the applicant and here there were  legitimate reasons for the immigration judge denying her credibility without addressing the corroboration which was that the there's nothing in the news articles or in the is it enough to compel a firm and that the government is neither unwilling or unable to deal with the monkey on the first with regard to the credibility standing yes we would have to point to substantial inconsistency isn't kenya but certainly you know before the hearing on that record and that here at that evidence isn't a record but there was also a substantial crackdown on the monkey in february of two thousand and three and just following up on that one just fine fellows that i get i guess that from the government's perspective you you agree that the petitioner has really two parts to the very one is her own story and that's where the cromarty of evidence issue comes in and the second has to do with her burden to show the think that you know she'd that the governments are behind this or not doing anything to suppress suddenly the evidence s gather that she did not meet her burden to show that the government is not interested indeed the government apparently is doing what it can to fight this group but the fact that she didn't report to the police she didn't in why that was the case if you thought it was going to be useless but there was nothing to back up her claim is that correct that's correct and in addition your honor someone who is a public advocate who claims they've been attacked because they're a public advocate against female genital mutilation which in a reasonable circumstance is so aligned with the authorities that it's hard to believe that in these circumstances where you have  crackdown on them just a month before the alleged assault you have twenty years of opposition to the practice plus the outlawing of the practice in two thousand and one that the authorities would not be responsible to a person who had those credentials and i think that's why also why corroboration seems so readily available that if someone is a public speaker or a public health advocate against things that the government imposes that that person would have a network of government coworkers coworkers at her hospital coworkers among the n g s those that would come forward with letters of support and  and it would be reported in the newspapers and in the country condition what role if any does the fact that she apparently the strains from her husband has been they've been apart for years and it was his family supposedly that had that the women in his family that made this attempt on her well i think that that strengthens her of her inability to communicate with her husband over the period of time between march two thousand and three coming to the country in january two thousand and four shows that people can relocate and not be found now the petitioners turn that ends that he's in hiding but if he's in hiding then so are the other people who didn't support her parents  siblings or neighbors or friends or coworkers coworkers that n g o s colleagues in the government it's just it just doesn't it's just not a  i'm sorry it's her burton and it is her burden and i would point out one other thing about cooperative evidence in this particular case rather than generally in the notice to respond and it there is a conduct of hearing action that says to bring that you can bring forward additional evidence besides simply your testimony here we have an english speaking educated nurse the hearings were conducted in english she did bring to the table her nursing certificate graduation pictures and the government brought forward articles the immigration judge indicated that  he would have liked to have seen articles and her husband support so that she was represented by able counsel if there had been an opportunity to bring forward that able counsel would have said she we should just we need another thirty days which is done routinely that she was on the outs with her husband i'm sorry i thought she was on the outs with her husband there's no there was no indication of that  time they were they were talking at the phone on the phone after the assault according to ms elias and he was the one who indicated that it was the mother in law who was the instigator and you