of immigration appeals because the immigration judge rendered an adverse credibility determination about me that is not supported by substantial evidence the government and its answering briefs does no that the immigration judge failed to render a legally sufficient credibility determination but instead the government argues that this stiction to review this petition the government is wrong and of course you reject it  but denied relief as a matter of discretion and the court then proceed to did noted that while out jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination it had jurisdiction to review questions of law and it proceeded to assess whether or not the that is inconsistent with her acknowledgement before the u s magistrate trial judge that she knowingly possessed the marijuana why isn't there substantial evidence to support that when she has signed an official court document petitioners explanations for any perceived in consistencies well let's hear ok counsel so what's her explanation for for having signed something in court to admit that she possessed marijuana i didn't know that she is she didn't think it was possible to plead to unknowingly possessing marijuana and she set forth the reason that her ex husband planted the drugs in her car and she corroborated that with testimony from her mother ok also an obligation or th circuit president and the immigration judge has to ask about the perceived inconsistency and i know there that the immigration judge and perhaps i'm maybe misremembering but it was very few questions i think around eight that he asked in total why you testified under oath that criminal you knew there was marijuana in the car versus your sworn testimony today that you didn't know both of those statements cannot be true case why can't the immigration judge find that based on them prior lie under oath is not credible it's not that the immigration judge can find that his that he didn't explain his reasoning as to how you reach that conclusion i mean you're argument is essentially a pure technical due process concern that he did not directly confront her with the inconsistency and ask her for the explanation which you just gave us but my my reaction to all of that is so was she still wide on one of the two occasions where she swore to tell the truth and doesn't have to provide substantial evidence to support and evers credibility  way so as not to insulate his or her opinion from judicial review and that's the problem here that the th circuit has clearly set forth the standards and immigration judge did not follow them when rendering this credibility determination more what more do i need to review here in order to conclude if there was substantial evidence as i understand the substantial evidence to as we look at the record and if we conclude that no reasonable fact finder could have made that finding and therefore the record compelled the opposite conclusion how can i say that where she lied on at least one of those doing well again it is going back to i think the process in which the immigration judge reached the decision and the reasons that were stated and what explanations were proffered by the immigration judge it were no trees or the remaining that i can see if i could well ins you know sort of fork in the road problem is she's en played it doesn't matter if we send this back she had not there is no circumstance under which she can offer a plausible explanation and the i j a identified the problem he said she testified contrary to her sworn statement there isn't any up all plausible explanation that she can offer if we send this back that's going to help her  again i think it's going back to him perhaps maybe i just seen it differently but in terms of the proffered explanation from both her mother and from herself as to why they ended up there and the circumstances that led to why she pled guilty i do think that the  th circuit president requires the immigration judge address however that i may have attacked did the all to miss sort of decision regarding her credibility i think miss well have i hit starr sixten yourself case is nothing is little more than a red herring what we have in this case is the agency engaging in a discretionary analysis the and a weighing of the positive and negative factors in this case that that would weigh in the discretionary analysis and it doesn't matter it simply doesn't matter whether whether the immigration judge found to be truthful or not about whether he knew there were drugs were in the car we have established established facts upon which the the immigration judge and the the board that under th circuit the already before the immigration gods and now boys back the immigration judge if if he or she is relying on inconsistent statements must confront the petitioner with the alleged inconsistency before the court can render a factual determination as to whether the petitioner is offering truthful testimony on which the discretionary decision is then made and if i understand petitioners challenge here it is a due process to challenge to the way in which the immigration judge conducted the proceeding before rendering the discretionary call on whether or not to grant the relief requested i think that you're correct that he tried to couch you have the due process i think that's the only potential way that you can even get into the substantial evidence question but and you're also correct about th circuit law but what that requirement kicks in when what the immigration judge has before him is inconsistent testimony that's not what we have here we have established fact we have her it missions if you go to she admitted all the facts well allegations in the notice say at that point you have to go and ask why are you i mean it doesn't even make sense that this doesn't apply she admitted that at the time she attempted to bring a controlled substance into the united states  well if the if in fact the immigration judge had we've had cases where they have been convicted of crimes but and they still gotten at the immigration judge has engaged in the discretionary waiting  sector that has held for the alien in this case what they said was that the negative factors out the adverse factors in the discretionary calculus and most importantly her criminal conviction which is an established fact she admitted  the one thing she does at least admit is that yes she knew about the money and the if you look at the board's decision he's not highlighting the board didn't even need to make that one sentence statement that those outweighs any positive factors in this case and both the immigration judges decision and that and the board show there was a very thorough weighing of this factor in this case it certainly can't be said  you know what the daughter knew about the drugs in the car manage i do and i read that and thought either you believe or or you don't but first thought again i want to emphasize that the average credit this case doesn't rise and fall on this to see this case grow rise and fall on the weighing of adverse factors which are devilish facts of this case the average credit really and i would respond as your honor didn't say so what i don't believe that that it has any any bearing on the negative factors which are stablished back to the clearly outweigh the positives but your point yes i think it was a it was the immigration judge did say he believed her but he found that to the extent she was testifying about the children's problems and the children he found that credible and weighted in the positive analysis but he again faced with the stablished facts of what this what crime occurred and what what elements of the crime were and the fact that the person admitted all of those he found her testimony questionable as well when it came to trying to distance her daughter from again the facts that were already established in this record that she knew was marijuana by saying her husband did it and what not but immigration it wasn't buying it from the from the petitioner and he wasn't buying conviction which which clearly speaks which is established and i did there are cases that say you know that the immigration judge is supposed to enquire about discrepancies in testimony but that that's not what went on here we had someone come in and testify completely contrary to her own admissions an established fact and that's simply not the analysis and again i would emphasize to the extent the court thinks that the judge said oh ok why are you testifying that you didn't do when all the records then you just admitted you did it it's harmless error even if you want to call it an error which i i do not call it an error on the facts but even if the court were to find that judge should have asked her that question which objective lee seems like a very ridiculous question i think it would confront the witness nonetheless there was no precedent there definitely was not i don't believe it was there for the recent data but yes you're correct there's clearly no prejudice and i would have  the paragraphs on page three of the record where the forward highlights the reason that the negative equity none of them have to do with what petitioners stated there has they had to do with the established facts of the case and her admissions not her testimony about whether her husband planted something doesn't matter all right thank you your honor thank you it's a tie i will give you two minutes for everybo thank you and all and i just have one point to make the government i think repeatedly can noting why does it matter and so what and the government did not raise many of these arguments about harmlessness and its briefing it simply did not address that but just argued jurisdiction and i think the salient point here is the th circuit president has been very clear about what an immigration judge must do when he or she is going to rely on inconsistency is within the record and there is one here an