opposed to a gang of thugs as the applications folder that they were going to kill or if you blew the whistle on them and the color of communists and therefore the that would give them an excuse to kill or how personally and threatened to kill her if she were to reveal that they were the ones responsible for the neighborhood robberies but it also points out that they threatened that they would have an excuse to kill her based on her a point without referencing that's read suggests to me anyway that it wasn't exactly considered and i think a more important point is we can't know whether it was expected considering i would submit that this would be a very different of a positive credibility finding her i think again the most important thing from my perspective is recognizing that we can't know whether there would have been a positive credibility determination or whether she would have not been on account of probably because it question again i travel through mexico for about a week one week on my way to united states so i that's why i was understanding that this summary back her review of the application and next which is whether the juda caters to the law reached a reasonable response to certain issues or deficiencies in the evidence that came up for them in this case gratian judge had an asylum application filed by the hundred ninety five which was very specific about the claims of harm she said that in one thousand nine hundred the people in her hometown organized the civilian patrol in an effort to combat guerrillas and she described her life in the marketplace and said that she would have conversations with these young men and some of them treated her well most did not they would steal from her they would be rude to her they would refuse to pay for the goods they took and sometimes she would loose they would discuss politics with her and she would say to them well i don't like violence of any kind whether it comes from the guerrillas or from anybody else and they would react to that and then she sat there began to be a series of home invasions where people would break into people's houses of the night and steal things and became her suspicion that this was being done by members of the civilian patrol and then she went on to describe a conversation she had with a member with one of these young men and she expressed that suspicion and then she said that any connection between them think they can expose or as a result the have an excuse to kill her because she's a communist and because of her prior membership and activities with u c and enough not to go to whether in money even in their minds whether they have link those two things that's correct that's correct but the real problem arose during the poor and i cannot defend myself they abuse their authority they do not like me because i have different political opinion from them and also because i discovered that they were robbers during the night so at least right if we're going to give credit to her written testimony there's nothing in the ruling on page two ruling you are fifteen where the i j a evaluates whether that's a true political threat or whatever just that's correct you that's correct and i think that i think the question is i think two things are clear in this case one is that the i g i did review the written application i think you think that's already been established the second question i think what  question but they harm you in any way that's time answered no i was only threatened two lines down this too they got i think began to realize that he had a problem that his client was not testify consistently with her written application winds down he begins to try to get her to repeat what she had said on her written application question do you have any other problems with anyone after this incident in one thousand nine hundred five answer i heard that someone was knocking at my door he says he as the true basis for the asylum claim and the issue is did the immigration judge have a duty to in effect step in and try to clarify this problem i think that meet mr vega the lawyer for the petition whatever when it's right there in the records and i think that it's a difficult question here and this is of course the court made by my colleagues in there and they're very well written graceful the law is clear the regulations are clear that immigration judges have a duty to develop the record no one disputes that this court's case law has have made it because in cases such as argument but that's particularly important when the alien is appearing cross eyed before the immigration judge that's not this case this person immigration judge is being unduly harsh toward the alien is in effect prejudging her case is not giving the alien a fair opportunity to make her case so the heat on the unspoken question is does the immigration judge have an affirmative duty to but she also told she also testified that she filed the next ninety nine application after meeting somebody in las vegas who told her that she did apply for asylum and that prior to that time she had never spoken with anybody about her circumstances in guatemala which wouldn't be  anybody about about these traumatic experiences until i meet somebody in las vegas who told me i can apply for political phylum and that's impeached by her nine hundred ninety three application which indicates that in fact prior to makea ninety nine she had spoken with position to say i believe based on my own personal knowledge of it of circumstances in guatemala that what she thinks to me was true and i'm basing my my psychiatric profile on my own knowledge of the circumstances in guatemala interview people in the albanian government who were personally familiar with the petitioner and and he was prepared to testify in support of the fiction this case with certainly would have been relevant to the officials overall credibility psychologist has a shot at changing the will of the mind of the immigration judge for you she signs off completely and in this case the psychologist could have provided some judge gave the petitioner a fair shot at telling her story and i confess to a bit of confusion because several questions from the court to me and my colleague has have indicated an assumption on the part of the authors that these story without saying i believe that person is credible or not i can say that based on what i've done i find what she told me her affectation her genuineness when she told me all of this is my medical opinion when i'm  between getting to the ultimate gets to the expert can an expert cannot testify on the ultimate facts but the expert is allowed to testify to those things which lay the foundation for the determiner it's a fact of credibility duty consistent with requirements and due process to allow supporting witnesses to testify on credibility when the main witness the asylum applicant who bears the burden of proof is patently not but it's hard to prove it of course i say in our brief that her claim that she didn't know it was an asylum application and that she was actually applying for for special relief as a as a special agricultural worker is not borne out by the record putting all that aside putting the one nine hundred ninety three application aside you still had you still have the problem that there was a rather see some stash of changes made between the one thousand nine hundred nine application and the two thousand applications where broken not just her arm was broken but that her arm was broken by the soldiers whose daughter on the street i think there would still be a serious credibility issue even if the ninety three application was somehow excluded from the case is there any is there any consequence to talk of the fact you didn't find the two t