course before i jump into credibility i want to talk briefly about the extraordinary circumstances exception to the one year old because this court's never construed the exception and we feel strongly that the immigration judge here applied an incorrect legal standard under the regulations  extraordinary circumstances refer to events or factors directly related to the failure to meet the one year deadline to establish extraordinary circumstances now can muster three things that he did not intentionally create the circumstances that the circumstances in question are directly related to his failure to seek asylum within the one year period and the delay was reasonable reasonable under the circumstances now on the record the judge referred to the standard at four different points at page one  await the i g indicated that mr beijing ario psychological problems don't qualify as an extraordinary circumstance because they don't quote rise to such a level that mr beijing area was prevented from exploring available legal relief and following through on the next page of the record the i g says quote there's really nothing in this diagnosis that leads me to conclude that mr beijing ari was so burdened by psychological problems that he was in effect physically unable to find out what his legal rights and responsibilities were in terms of seeking asylum i'm page one fifty nine the immigration judge says in the court's view nothing described in the psychiatric report rises to the level to create such a severe mental disability that mr  because it seems to me like critical to the analysis on the extraordinary circumstances the psychological report in the united you completely ignored it and in doing so he simply applied an incorrect legal standard and certainly the psychological report should have been taken into account i think this is a ventura type case where the court should determine if the immigration judge in fact applied an incorrect standard by requiring you know something more than the regulations require requiring that the individual show that he was incapable of filing look at the entire record and determine if an error with me not applying i don't expect this court to apply the correct standard in the first instance because i think that would violate ventura i think what the court has to do is look at the standard  employed determine whether that standard is consistent with the regulatory scheme which i don't think it is and then kick the case back at least on that for that question so that the immigration judge can apply the correct standard in the first instance i think that's the correct way to approach that traumatic stress or what other whatever other psychological difficulties he's suffering he has symptoms that include avoiding dealing with the trauma that he experienced in the past that's entirely consistent with out where not exactly  honor but i guess my my point in some is that the immigration judge viewed this question in correct lens he didn't view it through the standards set forth in the regulations and he applied an absolutely different standard and i don't think it's up to this cour in the first instance that's exactly what the supreme court said you're not supposed to do when there's legal error below if the judge committed legal air here and we feel strongly that he did the correct thing to do here is to point that out remain and so that he can apply the correct standard in the i think on that factual question about whether or not the application was filed within one year period that i think is a purely factual question i think you would be reviewing that for substantial evidence here however we have a different situation here the question is did the immigration judge occasions he said that the only had to demonstrate that he was incapable of filing within the one year period each and every time he addressed the one year old he used language like that and that's just wrong that's not consistent with the regulation and credibility we disagree with the government about whether the musings about the unusual nature of mr beijing are as clane said he just eighty eight eighty nine of the record are provide additional support for his adverse credibility finding but even if they do they can't they can't support the finding in this particular case for a number of different reasons first during mr beijing arias hearing no one suggested that the aspects of his claim that the immigration judge talked about at pages eighty seven eighty nine were unusual or implausible nobody asked mr beijing arre about that no one asked him to explain any unusual you know why it was unusual and as a result he never had an opportunity to give an explanation and thus they can't use those the issues that the immigration judge is referring to last pages of his decision that they can't support an adverse credibility finding under chen that's three sixty two at thirty six eleven or something for thirty nine f their loved one hundred but second if you look at that portion of the immigration judges decision it's just completely  speculative i just want to walk through the real question on page eighty eight of the record this is the immigration judges decision the immigration judge this is in the second paragraph there he suggests that although many people attended roma party president did he make it to the party was anybody else arrested in the convention before this is all stuff the immigration judge just speculating it's not reflected in the record and it can't form the basis of an adverse credibility finding the only you know of the eight reasons that the government points to to he's going to rely on not necessarily anything your honor i would take the position of the second circuit on that question i think that the issue is if there's a huge inconsistency in the testimony that no one in the courtroom is somehow inconsistent with the immigration judges own understanding of the way things work in romania or the way the romanian authorities would treat a dissident so insofar as he is he's really using those sorts of implausibilities and yeah he's got to raise that because there's no way any of us are go able to anticipate what the judge is thinking especially when it's not reflected by evidence in the record this is own perception about the way things should work so yeah he should have raised those in the fact that he didn't under this court's law doesn't allow him to use them against  gone back to this issue about you know political parties this is on page one sixty seven one sixty eight i'm running out of time here but it says you know are there a lot of political parties or for the gypsies romania is this no are there other parties that rep and the gypsies political parties  e says now in point of fact he's right he's absolutely right i mean if you look at page two sixty five there's only one wrong representative in parliament and it comes from the run the party there may be other parties none of those parties are lawful if you look at the state department report distinct questions here one of them is the ramadan effect and the other is credibility i would like to be able to get  about you where he's is what might be called the caviar part of the regulation in other words the regulation gives indications it doesn't say what you have to fi the individual did not cause this problem then you can find it unusual you still have to find some reason why it's them so i thought i knew too extraordinary you still have to find a reason well it's extraordinary and i submit the word extraordinary on why i changed is definitely a word which is subject to the in value laden after all whether something changed you can sort of look and say yes this is new or this or you know but whether something is extraordinary depends upon the person making the decision or what he considers to be a new we really are usual or more or less to be expected so it therefore it doesn't fit that part of ramadan the second thing that it doesn't fit within ramadan is that the facts are accepted council indicates with the facts the council indicates are accepted of the intermediate facts but the key fact is in determining whether this is an extraordinary circumstance is the effect upon the applicant's ability to have applied a filed a timely application that's the ultimate fact and as to that country and he would lied on these people he didn't have to rely on them he was smart enough he claimed to be a sophisticated political person he was smart enough to say hey get me an attorney get me somebody who actually knows american law or can tell me where i stand on this and the second part of course is the psychological evaluation you know i will suggest that a psychological evaluation two principles apply in the credibility determination the first is that the burden of proof is upon the applicants who was stabbed was there his story is truthful and the second is that you that these other parties were legal we have a lot of parties in this country it's two major ones but we are what would you respond to with regard to this country i would say that a major part of the mate well you have  phrased the question in a way that will relate to this so if you phrased the question what are the party who represents the environmentalists i would say probably the democrats was the republicans but also it's saying that the i j a has an obligation to give the petitioner an opportunity to clarify is there any questions raised regarding the testimony or was it was the burden is upon down the track because you used the word i would question his credibility based upon his party answer but that you talking right is that the basis upon which the i jan well i think you know i want to address the point that joe johns and i think is making that if there's one inconsistency in here that is supported by substantial evidence that may be enough i think that in this particular case that rule wouldn't apply and i say that because if you look at page eighty six of the immigration judge's decision what he says after looking at these various factors what he says is on balance taken as a whole you know the court finds the stories inconsistent incredible whatever i think what he's doing here is he's looking at these eight factors whatever cumulatively and because he's looking at them cumulatively if you threw out seven and one remains i still think you'd have to vacate and remain so that he could consider in the first instance where that one inconsistency if it is that way by substantial evidence