of that credibility finding begins on page one seventy four of the administrative records where the immigration judges down at the bottom of that page where the immigration judge says that the information that mr singh's doesn't mention set forth in the state department reports that he himself back at a minimum for the board to consider the evidence i just as you said was putting in the record there big here i don't think the immigration judge just admitted the a done them because if you look at all the other exhibits from twenty eight pages of the record here this is important it's prejudicial here because for example j c just did it mr somebody is not telling the truth could not have been targeted because he comes from a out of his father's death has believed that his father had been killed by the police he said that wasn't plausible because the police themselves had he was killed in an accident well if the profile had been on the record the judge would have come to a different conclusion if you look at  h twenty two of the profile that makes clear that many hundreds of people have been killed by the police police in what they call fake encounters  police and they frame these as accidents or encounters so it seems to me at a minimum this case has to go back to the board because it's not at all clear that the board had the country profile but in addition there are other reasons what that passport reflected by that agent asked him for photographs he provided the photographs that he had those photographs it's true reflecting him wearing a turban because that was his practice in india he goes on to say key never saw passport first time he met the agent was at the airport he testified that the only time he saw the passport was from a distance because the agent had that in his hand it's two eighty six and twenty four of the record it's simply not true it's not at all quote i company my grandfather to many meetings i company my grandfather many times and we were arrested many times police tortured my grandfather seven or eight times and i was tortured four  r page three fourteen of the record where he takes responsibility says that mr and no role at all in gathering these corroborating evidence so of course it's erroneous for the judge to fault him for failing to explain completely illegible the immigration judge construe this is a mr semi construed as a five frankly i think it's a i don't know what it says but it's not the it's not sufficient grounds to find somebody lacking credibility that's not contained in the record petitioner himself was given an opportunity during his removal hearing me deportation hearing to produce information on country conditions that would show that he would likely suffer persecution upon his return to india and the most recent information that he was able to provide was one nine hundred ninety eight information and the two thousand and three articles that he submitted in fact show no problems for sikhs who are living in the punjab province those articles only discuss problems between hindus and muslims but they did not mention adam's experience i see and i'm referring to record page one eighty one i'd like to address counsel's argument  which is essentially a picking up part of the immigration judges credibility finding counsel to provide a number a number of reasons as to why the immigration judges vision should be reversed and while it is possible that you could draw different conclusion was not a member of the party and his political activities consisted of giving rides to people from his villages to various demonstrations on five or six occasions over the course of eight that does not demonstrate immigration hearing aeration judge at that hearing judge observed that he looked well groomed he was not ordering a beard or wearing a turban and his hairstyle or his haircut was short and when asked why he did not wear turban petitional replied he did not or had not asked anyone including his family members who were in the united states to provide him with a turban and finally the immigration judge found that his physical injuries were not consistent with the medical documentation that he provided to show that he was in fact injured for example the medical certificate that he proved resigning from the hospital it was actually dated to hans higher to the alleged treatment three and the immigration judge was well within his right to look at the document and find the date on it was dated march two thousand and three which was two months preceding the alleged injury and treatment  i say we disagree with every point that the government's made in this presentation just like the one hundred i think is one of the weakest credibility terminations i've ever seen but i want to focus on the them in the country profile i mean the government says they have no idea what report i'm talking about it's our opening brief to twenty eight page report called the country profile and every asylum claim every asylum case as a general matter the government or the judge put into the records the country reports and the country profiles and they're very thank you better will be submitted we appreciate your argument