an appropriate basis for finding your client not credible i mean even if they even if they could have accepted your client's explanation they said they were compelled to and why should we find that they required to accept plausible or possible explanations as they provide a cogent reason for not and to reverse we have to find that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion why does the the decision as a saying they are not compelled to accept your explanation and that they don't find that when you submitted rehabilitated your credibility as opposed to requiring you to submit something else i think those are two different things if someone is requiring you to submit something then you have to have a fair opportunity to rebut it but if they're simply  saying that what you submitted didn't rehabilitate your client's credibility i don't believe the law requires them to give you a subsequent opportunity to clarify the documentary evidence you submitted was why is what i just said if this is the forgive my pronunciation is this the hope for living in that area there have been earlier contemporaneous ones whereas this one currently was issued within  is there any background that says that to get a floating population certificate there's that kind of feed for it or was that really a bribe in your in your estimation introduce new evidence new evidence does seem to indicate that it's likely that his wife underwent like ation procedure so the key question now is whether that procedure was forced on terri and on that issue although we have his testimony which is why the credibility finding was so here i had to clarify something right off the bat about the date of the procedure and the discrepancy there mr wasn't doing just for being off i a month are a couple weeks for something that happened years ago is that he was even if you accept translating it it didn't fall within november which was the date on the certificate because that the day said that translated it would have gone on to the go green calendar to december introduce which calendar he thought it would translate to given that was such a key part of his explanation so unlike his it just seems to me that given that the the written document says is that the writers of the written document got it wrong attentional a by a day and if they did there's nothing that would detract from the just statement on this point that i'll remember it explanation i think the cases we normally see on this type of the issue are a petitioner says the amount of the fine was x and the there's documentation that shows that the amount of the fine was there was a difference to suggest that maybe the documentation the form the summiting didn't actually happen there wasn't a fine of any amount to suggest that maybe the story he's giving isn't correct that is not truthful is not accurate it just is one of those believe that's the he could introduce and so he was on notice of all these different problems almost a decade ago so he came back again it was certainly able if you had the materials introduce it or to provide some explanation that's not quite so convoluted as it did for the four thousand made my interpretation of your honors as i read it was a four thousand feet i have a four thousand feet to have the document issued and i'm sure that's me as a four thousand feet it kind of go through the paperwork at the government officials to sign off and that sort of thing and either way