it's not obvious saying versus sessions whether the board of immigration and immigration judge misapplied the law requiring the petitioner to prove an exact date of entry wasn't the determination based on issues and if that's the case entry which is a misapplication of law and present step by this court so if we were to accept your view of the law of the and take your argument what facts are there that essentially were ignored i believe your position is oh well the facts ignored by the by the agency were that the fact that the fact of the petition was absent from the us and this was a crowd rated by four pieces of evidence to which was by this interested parties which the agency did not even give any consideration to and was selling a point he provided evidence from his previous employer stating that he was working up until may twenty levon letters by a letter persecution him being beat by the indian police on may third two thousand and eleven and then we also have letters by his cousin or us citizen that state that shit when he arrived in september sixteenth two thousand and eleven that she she met up with him and then she gave him housing his employment status and when he worked the manner in which he came within into the country as well and he did not explicitly fundamental incredible so he's assumed to be credible at that port too in terms of his most of his journey the way he came into the country not be a dramatic inconsistency which would find which would find that the i g deviated from the president of the we have some problem with the with the with the provisions that kicked in in may two thousand two thousand and six that sort of undercut our i'll call it a dramatic holding yes your honor but in the same breath goes it was just an omission it wasn't it wasn't inconsistent inconsistency within the statement and it's testimony that would lead someone to deem someone incredible it was just an additional fact that he was kicked as opposed to leaving that out of his statement it's not something we're aware if he omitted an entire beating or he did not bring up another integral part of his persecution so we talked about most of it but he just didn't say that he was kicked in the back exactly that's all it is it's does not go to the heart of the heart of his claim at all your hon law regarding how the board decided that the application in this case was untimely at the end of the last full paragraph on the first page of the board's decision they clearly state the proper standard they cited the regulation they cited the statute value and that's what happened in this case the letters that are being mentioned were created months after the petitioner entered the united states and months after he filed his application so there are little evidence your way they're actually the weakest evidence that he would be been able to provide in this case and whether they create the inference or implication me that that he was there he just said that they're there we just kind of evidence it's still evidence that can be considered should be consider determination sure under which is is beautiful the way that the evidence that the immigration judge the way to the immigration judge gave to the evidence in this case is not revealed unfortunately for the petition and keep in mind even if this court were to find that the  application was timely filed he would still be ineligible we even know that he gave  again your honor it would be harmless error there be no reason to remain for something is zero evidence that this is that is this week again because it was created months after he entered the united states at the immigration judge saying i reject this context of finding whether he had filed the application within one year veteran united states so how do we know whether the immigration judge just totally ignored this or didn't even think it was there when it is some evidence i mean that's that's it seems to me repeatedly a problem when we do order a remailer and that gives rise to our ordering remember we don't know what you did with this piece of evidence and if believe you haven't rejected it saying you're not giving in any way to but if you didn't think it was in the record and we point out yes it is in the record now take it back and tell us whether it means anything to you and if this isn't was about reason your honor and there is a presumption that the immigration judge was aware of all the evidence and perhaps the fact that he did not discuss it is because it was of such little weight but again that's a factual determination which is unreliable and again just to reiterate that even if the application is deemed timely because of the credibility determinate determination in this case he would still be eligible for  because substantial evidence supports the credibility determination which would could be used that would lead us to have to say and he would be eligible for asylum which we can't do but that remain would be futile and it would just be pro forma we may have to agree to disagree and then with respect to the credibility finding in this case as counsel try to explain that inconsistency is must can only be dramatic to lead to a credible information that's not this court case law it's that when an inconsistency is not dramatic the petitioner must be given an opportunity to explain when inconsistency is dramatic but it's just so implausible inconsistent with the evidence arms were hyperextended and when he was given an opportunity to explain that disparity between his prior statement and what he was now testifying to at the hearing his explanation underscores the immigration judges concerns with his credibility first he said that it was the translators fall and that what he told the translator this person who was never named declined to amend the statement then he said that well he didn't ask the translator to provide a letter to the immigration judge conceding that it was the translators fault that this information was left out of the statement and then he said well he just dictated the information to the translator there was never a punjabi statement in the first place it's such a convoluted explanation which the immigration judge wasn't required to except that underscores the credibility and with the second detention and may two thousand and eleven he added that he was punched and kicked in the back and that is his thigh muscles were too and bruised and when the immigration judge asked him why he had never put that in his written statement he said that it was in the medical record from that incident but the medical record is only for the two thousand and ten detentions so whatever happened in a two thousand and eleven could not have been in the doctor's letter does the  the the level of his credibility is to be ten percent also look at the contemporaneous requirement it's not import because all evidence cannot be attained contemporaneously when someone is escaping persecution from his home country he's travelling for and this  this was found he was found to be credible from his mode of transportation a mode of journey coming into the u s so for him to come from central america from mexico coming into texas taking a truck and coming to new york state for him to have the it's a result to require him to have this being a question of law we would ask the case to be remanded for the agency to speak on the issue of his timeliness which would be proven by his absence within the usa but for end them