able to based on the record in the problem becomes when the trainee generals are fit to deny the motion to reopen when the evidence is at dalgleish of the fifth amendment violation but still denied is a fifth amendment right and so the ultimate issue really should be whether or not the movement of the salish is factually that they've had a fifth amendment violation in this court is of course recognized that and they between attorneys and their clients and have the attorney for what is the client's clear failure to show up or whatever in this case now why in this case that that strict compliance and tradition explain why and i don't think there is really an allegation here by anyone that there was collusion if we turn to the question of prejudice and challenge the your ability to show this case yes we are that is our position that that if we couldn't show that our client had a viable asylum claim then there would not be prejudice we would have for sure there's a viable your credibility will be raised you have a bit of a problem that's true i mean with the wedding date that's fairly difficult you get a couple of documents from the former wife and from your own client who put the wedding to about four hundred ninety two he submitted that document and he just didn't think that blows this entire testimony half way out of the water because he sticks like glue to the one thousand nine hundred sixty eight and you have the affidavit of the wife so isn't that a substantial basis for anyone to conclude that conclude there's a problem with credibility here well yes or and if there is a problem again if this was the only i do think we can diminish the weight of this document your honor based on the entire circumstances however that this is not the only evidence in this record you have you have very consistent testimony and i think if you didn't have this document you really wouldn't have a point his testimony standing alone would be enough and then you have a lot of that that i said i think of you look at this testimony his explanation then the weight of this document was floating around in the ins system that mr dylan never testified about no one ever reviewed is consistent with it is you please the court mike williams for the respondent i think this case illustrates the wisdom of the requirements particularly the third requirement in a case such as this one which as you point out would at error and is there for as an officer of the court presumably about as good as you're going to gather mean at least in that case you've got the party who committed the clear error telling you what you want to know and there they have to show up and unless they're a one shot deal in the immigration courts it seems to me that's a pretty good share of credibility and confirmation that somebody is willing to acknowledge that you know the immigration group itself the court system there i'm afraid i can't ask that question so that's why i was saying officer of the court why we can sort of monitor the terms that come before us  are doing it in the immigration field beginning to say goes to the state bar that that's something that should tip the scales when you've actually got the attorney confessing there to the very body in which they presume to at least a substantial part of their practice specialize that's what i'm wondering if it's not a technicality that they should also self report to the bar not that they should but that that should be the linchpin i don't think it's a technicality your honor it's it's i would hope that lawyers would never collude with clients but i believe that it could happen and i think that's the purpose of this requirement thank as well what about the asylum officers report on the assessment through for the bottom paragraph on page one of the nine applicants testimony this is my asylum officer johnson applicant's testimony was found not credible because of  material inconsistency appen testified police tried to arrest in august ninety six when questioned whether the police target federation members for that reason alone after going to agreed that they aren't arrested then changed his testimony explanation is implausible so that's that's another problem isn't it that's not a problem he also it's noted in there that as factors your second arrest i think is to say it was that the taking for back given what most pills and i think an injection but the doctor makes no mention of a broken leg nor does he make mention of what i would think would be an extraordinary fact of a stay of five months generation in the hospital so i treated him for injuries to relieve his pain as well as swelling there's no showing of anything broken client denied it so you had a dispute between the officer and your client and that was resolved against your client i think i don't know if i recall the immigration judge is this you know i don't think he really relied on that assessment to