immigration appeals was picked apart like a smorgasbord and it selected to take certain pieces and the selected not to take certain pieces they found the immigration judge decision to be speculative that sounded to be  honor in this circuit the court has held that in situations where there are reasons for immigration judge to doubt the credibility of the petitioners testimony that corroborating documents can be submitted to the immigration judge and order to strengthen the weaker parts of the petitioners testimony so we felt that  judge has not made a credibility and adverse credibility determination if there's no reason for the immigration judge to doubt the credibility of the petition are then and corroborating documents this court is held are not always required at this stage were the court to overturn the immigration judges adverse credibility determination response position is that the court would remain and to the board in order to make a finding taking all records it's not just the fact that he was unable to submit them to the court it's the fact that it one point he says that they were left in rangoon at another point he said he had to destroy them before he left with respect to the membership card it's not just the fact that he unable to produce it it's the fact that when point he said i couldn't bring it with me i had just gave you know as soon as i found out that i could leave i left my membership card in rangoon i cannot get it i hate it in the house my wife doesn't know where it is she couldn't send it to me because she couldn't find it and then finally he said i had i destroyed it before i left so it's not simply the fact that he couldn't produce it it's also the fact that there was inconsistent testimony regarding that additionally his hospital stay he study was in the hospital for two weeks once he was released from detention which would have been on december twenty fifth one thousand nine hundred one but then in another point in this testimony he said that he was present at the birth of his daughter which was december twenty seventh one thousand nine hundred one when asked discrepancy he explained that in the week between when he was released from detention he went to be with his wife and his daughter and then checked himself into a hospital a week later for two weeks of treatment  testified that the treatment he received was for injury to his there was no testimony when he testified actually about the beatings or the treatment that he received when he was in prison he did not  detailed description of what was contained in the pamphlets his testimony regarding the identities of a there and all the members at one point he stated that during his detention he was beaten and interrogated and he finally had to reveal the identities during his later in his testimony he stated that he never revealed their identities and in his asylum application he stated that he didn't have to reveal their identities with respect to the document he was forced to sign when he was released from  detention at one point is that he didn't have time to read it he didn't know what it's that at another point he did in his asylum application he was very specific and said that the letter stated that he was involved in the end event that provoked instability and if there was another demonstration the university he would be held personally responsible at another point he testified with a more vague description of what was contained in the pamphlet the date of his studies at one point he said that he was studying out he was studying physics at the as well so taking all of these into consideration there is substantial evidence clearly supports the immigration judges adverse credibility determination and efficient tries to put the focus on the fact that the immigration judge was requiring corroborating evidence but as we discussed in the beginning of my argument corroborating evidence is required in order to bolster testimony that has been found to be unbelievable or v assume that government officials carry out their duties in good faith the immigration judge has that material before him and finally the immigration judge is not required to rely on documentary evidence as we stated before if the applicant is not credible and finally petitioner tries to blame the adverse credibility determination on problems with the translation and just to quickly address that he never raised this concern during his hearing and actually the record reflect honor having looked at many transcripts from these proceedings i can agree that that often times there appear to be something that is lost in translation and the point of respondent bringing up this point is not to say that please ask him to slow down please ask him to let me finish my sentence it seems you understands the english and the times that petitioner has quoted in his brief actually are times when the petitioner was mumbling in response to the translator and those were times when he was trying to explain discrepancies did he raise sea issues to the board and he did he did raise the translation problems before the board i don't think you can fault people for not raising it at the hearing make don't really necessarily know what was going wrong and to a later reading the transcript you're on right i agree with you completely if and retrospect it is realized that something has clearly been translated incorrectly i meant to say december eleventh one thousand nine hundred one it was translated this time eleventh two thousand and one in this particular situation that's not the case it's not that the petitioner can point to any one translation that w incorrect he simply is saying there were these times when we weren't understanding each other and looking at the record part of the reason that the translator was not able to understand the petitioner is because he was mumbling not because of some problem in understanding th thank you very much just on the last part of the record speaks for itself the translator clearly indicated he couldn't translate and the judge admonished him and said don't say that i do your job i don't know cancel was in there i wasn't there i don't know that's not what it was  said just just do that just translate exactly what he said and then the translator went on to saying i cannot translate it it doesn't make sense i understand but what the  career my client testified credibly that he was a korea and the envelopes with sealed what counsel isn't saying is that the judge obviously didn't take judicial notice this is a matter that occurred in ninety one he's testifying in two thousand counsel wants him to say why didn't he mention legs i think that's not a proper way to raise an adverse credibility issue that is not an adverse credibility issue the other issue is he's mentioning as a student if we take eleven years from today and we see some monk today was the students and he was a student at that time he did graduate in eighty eight he couldn't get a job he remained in the university that was not an inconsistency he stated that he stayed there because he wanted to carry on his political activities so treatment but he starts to find eleven years later i mean we're not talking of an event that took place two days before something that he's trying to recollect through a translator and tells the best and he telling the judge i'm telling the truth there were no inconsistency the may have been issues where it wasn't clear and he tried to clear that he gave an explanation and the immigration judge obviously was unfamiliar with the country conditions he could not understand why the energy today would only have that isn't two thousand be speculative they themselves say they will not hold or maintain the speculation conjecture by the judge or certain various other inconsistences that the judge found but they don't lie you gave three different answers regarding the destruction of your car or not having your card he so i mean just from our perspective the judge did not understand our client's claim and did not understand the country that he was