conclusions with which you're familiar and i think that this person has lied and i think that in the end the i g s determination in this case violates every single principle that this court has established for conducting credibility analysis first of all it's personalized and subjective findings second is in fact contradicted by the record and third that the findings don't relate to the heart of the claim that i can give you examples of each number one what about the part where he apparently admits that he left a whole lot of stuff out that was relevant and he says well my attorney told me to leave that that's right and he said that his attorney told to leave it out they did not issue a subpoena for the attorney to or ask it's a journey hearing asking the attorney to submit response or anything like that that's a perfectly understandable explanation it doesn't mean that the chinese told them leave it out your remember what you have here is he's talking to his attorney over the phone and my own personal experience i can say when i talk to foreigners over the appears to be hiding something in his testimony the court didn't specify where that testimony didn't specify what he's hiding how it would have been relevant if that generalized stuff that this court has not approved an example of is he represented by counsel understanding of it and that's a perfectly thing and that's why it was probably if the court wanted to pursue that point they should have issued something to the attorney other make that argument that is learning that are you the lawyer there was i made that argument on his appeal brief yes with the learn make it right then and there i don't recall pointing the record but there was nothing about that on the other findings for example there was a statement he should have known whether he was on british airways or kenyan airways which doesn't make sense when you consider they didn't read english or understand english at the time and we had not slighting how that relates to the heart of the asylum claim on another point the immigration judge said well he couldn't figure out whether you live on fourth street or six treat that's not true as i point out with grief in fact he testified his wife said they moved from fourth street to sixty in said he didn't know where it was that was a mistake made by the immigration judge another point the immigration judge says he feels to provide explained how his brother got back from the shop after he was beaten shot again that's not true on page two fifty eight of the record mr was tommy specifically explained that other other people carried his brother back in the shop at the start his brother was so badly injured so every one of these situations where there was something specific in the record it's it isn't there there's nothing that supports it took it as a set of violet to three basic rules of this course has  to be subjective you can't have a subjective determinations you have to go to the heart of the coin and it's contradicted by the record i mean the only thing that you do have yes he did not put that in the transfer in his genes three twenty five he gave an explanation very well now it doesn't because as i point out the i j a in fact almost every one of the findings he made relating to the story was in fact contrary to the record for example as i mentioned he mentioned well you don't know whether it's for the sick st that's not what the testimony was  lot how often did you go to the store you can remember so i swear i don't know this was a long time ago it would have been nine hundred ninety would have been ten years early thank you nine hundred ninety nine yeah it would have been ten years or s i don't have because i flew here from ohio i don't have the entire thick record with me i can provide a supplement if there's an error on that i will check it i had in my brief c a r two fifty eight i will check on that but that was what i have referred to in there but in that there was a whole colloquy there about what happened that whole issue in each in the end he responded to each comment that was made by the judge and g answer to it so as a result when you look at each of those issues in the final i think that in fact you do not have specific findings related to the heart of the asylum claim that are the basis specific date for his date of interest and which is within the one year there was no that that point of there was no finding made that is outside the one year rule because that's it he would have as a matter of not entitled to a file and the judge did not make that fin and i think the judge would have liked to have made that finding but he couldn't because there was nothing to contradict mommas and to mr worse on his own testimony about that point time there was a frivolous finding that was based on this g three three twenty five year end and can you explain let me clarify that i have i have trouble understanding what the under immigration nationality act section two o where there is a frivolousness finding and yet on the credibility findings generally at least there's some match up between what is what is what is submitted to the i to accept that explanation as a reasonable one however he would have to believe that the attorney had willfully ordered the petitioner to sign the document under penalty of perjury night was false and the immigration judge found th when he traveled to the united states what airline he used what residence was he lived in and all the different jobs he had all of which would the problems for establishing like them convincing evidence that he has a problem in one year when someone shows up at  that integration is there's no evidence that he spoke negatively or criticize that in our behavior of the other two witnesses in this case other than other than other than this one  petitioners well i was told to fabricate all this information that the judge to us finally had an obligation to somehow get a hold of the accused lawyer and notwithstanding the absence of an i claim at that point  clarification on that by the judge to offer an explanation he says nothing about this he references a charge against an uncle which is one family member and there's no further explanation over i'm sorry that the sponsor or first time your honor as a matter of form shopping he doesn't he doesn't require refer to to attempt to tie into the date of intrigue and frankly whether how he when he worked in columbus ohio in the year two thousand how does that relate to his he referred to one specific point as was discussed there and then there were no further questions asked so somebody was executed he talked about one point if you refer to the one parent of his and one parent representation was made that relatives had been executed and when i got to the hearing turns out that wasn't the case is that right or wrong i don't agree with that he did say that really well because he did say his testimony was that the time they said they're going to come back and kill everybody we're going to come back and kill all of you maggots and that's all that's in seating that it was an exaggeration the representation of people have been executed if they if there's talk within the context