after reviewing what would be the entire record the transcript and everything that went on before the immigration judge i think that's the stance will evidence here compels a different decision than what we received from the immigration judge i had occasion to long ago to watch a program on the evening news the news program where they interviewed young man that had been wounded in the war in iraq and he came back without limbs and so forth they were going through some type of rehabilitation program and they asked asked them some up in the east northeast down in alabama in the southern states and so forth and they asked them if they understood what they were fighting for what they were there what al qaeda was all about and things like this and it was surprising that many of them could not give you could not respond in a way other than you know were there because we're americans and we're there because you know it's the right assume you're going to connect the sub to this this case i s think so just because you know here we read through this transcript and you see that there's three arrests there's a ninety five arrestors ninety seven arrest is ninety eight arrested and the immigration judge at one point responded to share here but respond before the immigration court to be able to say with any certainty what the group was all about you know who at one point what happened at the college testimony that he did provide to the court he provided it from his vantage point from what he saw he knew that he'd been arrested he knew that his his family paid twenty five thousand rupees to have him released and he knew that he was election in one thousand nine hundred five he knew that was wrong and he wanted to stand up for that but the immigration judge as he heard this testimony didn't find sufficient detail didn't find enough come in its credibility the issue and obviously we're not going to do we determine what the facts are we have a standard of review which is significantly differential that is correct and i don't i don't see that the response that the petitioner today through to me would be asking that this court substitute its own our judgment not at all but i think that if we look at the average and weigh it from the standpoint of what actually happened in that courtroom it's a lot different being here today and friend of three three judges that have read through this briefs that have read the arguments to see this day after day and being in that room without windows in front of an immigration judge everything is very different and frankly i'm not being disrespectful to the panel i've asked that someone at some point actually visit those court rooms to get an idea of what happens there because here you have an individual that is told that his lawyers told had some concern with the quality of the documentation the lack of an adequate foundation the proffer of copies the suggestion of the use of a fraudulent passport and i think the judge went to i read the entire transcript and i think the judge went to some pains to point out to your client's attorney at that hearing that the immigration judge had some serious concerns with regard to the weight that ought to be given to the testimony for those reasons and then he also mentioned problems with the hearsay nature of the affidavits that were submitted the fact that the father did not speak english as the petitioner testified and yet signed a declaration in english that was proffered in support at the hearing aren't those all proper factors that the finder of fact can take into consideration in judging the credibility of the petitioner and the strength of the evidence that is being submitted in support of his is sort of beside the point he's applying for asylum however he got here and there and that depends upon his convincing the trier of fact that he has been the victim of persecution and that if he is sent back in the future that he will continue to be persecuted that's his burden right unless i've got the accepted that document but we have the trier of fact looking at this same graph looks to me like you came in here with a bad passport i don't know that i can believe anything you don't like you can't why is that an improper consideration i mean we know there's a lot of fraud in immigration cases we know that there are coyotes and people who make their living professionally smuggling aliens into the united states and i'm sure these immigration judges a number of these cases why isn't it an appropriate consideration for the fact finder to inquire about the potential for fraud and in connection with the case i think it's an appropriate consideration to have the fact finder inquire about it but i think it's inappropriate to have someone who's who should be an impartial fact finders then take that and use that as a stick against you because you've now made an application for style you left that country in any way that you could if any of us were somewhere where we had been beaten arrested three times you're going to find a way to move away from that situation if it means that you're going to go out and get yourself a fraudulent passport then maybe that is what the individual does but does that diminish the credibility from my vantage point i don't think fraud could never  in your view of the law fraud could never be an appropriate factor to assess the credibility of a well i think that's going to that's going well that's certainly not what our jurisprudence i think that's going too far since you know i certain certain certainly i think the fraud has to be a factor but i think that if you take all the facts in this case and weigh them and you look at this and you see the motivation of the individual had for opinion that fraudulent passport someone did a photo altered passport for even if it wasn't translated for the attorney to hear that and to be able to go back and say well you know the judge this is what he said here thank you mr gardner you have consumed all your time well now you're from the government had to be admitted to the country on fraudulent documentation they chose to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him enter and try to make his case for that's the first point second point is he has no we don't really know who he is immigration judge gave him the benefit of the doubt he has not one original document establishing his identity his nationality we know nothing about who he is he doesn't have a passport he doesn't have a driver's license he doesn't have an original document  he has no proof of who he says he he is but he was given the benefit of the doubt moreover we don't know why he entered why he had to get a fraudulent passport no charges were pending against him he's not the simple an educated farmer  represents him to be he finished high school he had one year of college he was active politically in college so he's not completely naive he's not a poor farmer who's done nothing but you're in the earth and stayed out of politics so why didn't he go out and try to get his own part there was no reason he couldn't try but he didn't so we're not sure this hold the whole adverse credibility here is based on the fact that he just the story doesn't hold water it's not plausible he h whole claim is based on three incidents one he was in a brawl in college because it was related to an election the point is there was violence people got hurt some people got arrested he was one of them because he was mistreated when he after being arrested doesn't make it who he hung out with while they were retrieving weapons now first of all why the police would know that he had spent four hours with a militant group is beyond comprehension second of all in his state in his written declaration he says they came to take my tractor and took me with them and it's just money he didn't say that they took the tractor they say they took him and for some reason he hung around with them they either talk to him or they didn't talk to him he said both and he's hanging around with them for four hours while they're picking up guns and then they let him go again this makes absolutely no sense he says well i agree with their basic policy but i don't know what they're about and again this man has one year of college he's not an educated he must have had some idea so then apparently the police know that he's been pulled from the seals and on a ranch other fields and has spent time with the militants if in fact this is true they know that he's been going around gathering guns from hiding places of course the police have a legitimate interest in finding out what this group plans to do with the guns he was with them when they took the guns what they did to him in prison if indeed that happened it's not worth can john ink but it doesn't make a persecution on account of a political opinion that might have been imputed to him he had information about this group he was with them when they picked up the guns the police had a legitimate interest in finding out what this group planned to do with the guns he because he was with them when they picked them up they had a right to find out what was going on there plus he was released upon both were released he turned himself in first father was beaten up for a couple of days and then was released to pumping then a bride two issues here one there's not enough detail and that was the immigration judges finding that lack of detail we don't this story does not compel a finding it was persecution on account of the putin political opinion moreover there were two other plausible explanations one that they wanted to know about the activities of this group which he could reasonably assumed to have because he hung out with them while they were getting their weapons or two they just wanted money and the immigration judge found that both were possible explanations because both possible explanations are possible based on this record the evidence cannot be additional burden of showing that it wasn't entered into for immigration purposes he made no effort to meet that so he filed a motion to reconsider when the board tonight saying you haven't met your burden he filed a motion to reconsider extend the deadline for filing we're going to give you fifteen days so does the filing thing with an explanation asking us to take it by certification does he and he has he admits that he got it ten days before it was due he got it on august nineteen the timeframe set by the board the board did not have to give him the extra time he had already missed the deadline but they did and now he's saying because the board was not authorized by regulation to give him an additional fifteen days they should be faulted for giving him an additional fift it was his fault for failing and total failure to meet the additional time that the board gave him are there any questions on other issues no questions from the bench counsel thank you very much  will be submitted for decision and