discretion in particular whether whether it's an abuse of discretion to deny an otherwise credible asylum application application simply on the basis of the merits brought first as to credibility the idea in this case found the petitioner incredible basically for three reasons first of all plausibility he had difficulty visualising certain certain aspects of his testimony in particular leader actually told them to hold off on the i j on the other hand thought that the joint been taken and then somehow return which simply didn't happen so apart from being conjecture it's conjectured it's not supported by the  support for the argument that there is proper for the idea to consider the marriage try to shoot in in finding responded incredible but both of these cases explicitly distinguish between friday and documents submitted for the purpose of bolstering the solemn application and and documents submitted in other immigration related contacts and this is clearly the marriage fraud to the if there was a handwritten affidavit by don jenkins  the government didn't submit is not a u s citizen but someone who laughs when you live in northern california and the exactly exactly that i think that the i think i think that the board's case is that i said that i cited in my rule twenty eight a supplemental letter are not withstanding so i can amendments to the immigration and nationality act can only vacate the adverse credibility finding if the evidence of record compels the conclusion that the credibility finding was erroneous a review of the record reveals that there is no evidence compelling such a conclusion and first and this is really very important the adverse credibility finding was made in the context of a state department report which throws the petitioners claims in doubt the state department report reveals that there's a high level of i'm not saying that your honor and i'd like to explain myself again that's the context in which the immigration judge found himself in and it certainly emphasizes why even the slightest indication of testimonial dishonesty would cause serious opposite conclusion you have a lot of evidence you have evidence number one and i will get to the specific evidence in the state department reported page two of two states that applicants who testify that militants who were active after nine were arrested by police alone and not along with the senior male family members are not credible because the modus operandi of the police is always to erect arrest the senior male and all the young males in the family mr saying of course i'm happy to discuss anything you like your honor  said these are a k forty seven we are carrying and we need money to buy them and then finally the immigration judge still trying to clear up how he found out that they were carrying a k forty seven says so that you  implausible and it is impossible and that's why it's important to examine these perhaps smaller problems because what happens in these cases is that the pensioners come and give a general story and the fact that answer to what how he knew they were carrying a k forty seven and it demonstrates that when he's presented with a question that doesn't fit in with the story that he's telling  flails around for an answer and ultimately gives an impossible answer the immigration judge also found that it was a classical that the desperate militants would  in with their varying arms ask for money and receive the answer that we don't have any money and then the trying to take the jewelry they demanded  i've read the testimony and i think the immigration judge gets the testimony right i don't think he describes the all the testimony but he gets it right in its essence  testimony my recollection is that the testimony was that they demanded the jewelry and it's one time it's unclear whether or not the jury was handed over and  when the mother doesn't speak english or write english and there was no evidence of a translation or a translator  would have you know even accepting his story perhaps that he would have gone there and children the document show that this is another reason the refugee does show them letters that he was not working with the militants his story is he came and complained about their visit and they suspected that he was working with him with them if he would have had documents which established well no i'm not working with them they're threatening me because they say that you know i'm cooperated with the police why bring those documents again this question came and asked them asked him about matters which would not fit in with the story that he came in to tell he was flustered and able to give a proper answer so he gave an impossible answer  there's no indication in the record why mr singh would have to stay in the hospital for five months with the person who read the x ray determined was a was a small  fracture hairline fracture there was the mother of his testimony that after five months of beatings almost every day in the first incident the only medical care he received was relieve some herbal tea from his mother and he also testified that they made him do laundry and mow the lawn during these five months and it seems hard to believe that if they were beating him every day he would be in any condition counsel got up here and said well you can't the immigration judge couldn't consider that because he didn't have anything to do with the advance of his asylum claim well that makes absolutely no sense at all this is clear evidence to think that an individual whose credibility is called into question the fact that question if it doesn't really you have th number one he came into the country he got into the country he saved he's got an asylum application if you know obviously if he's got an asylum application he can state what good i mean why should he i mean the only reason that i can think of he ha validated that he did not marry that he married her to stay in the country and he vowed they did that he gave her money he did not certainly didn't say he gave her money to to marry him but the immigration judge could reasonably have presumed that that's in fact what happened and you know he corroborated her assertion that she was paid and he gives this really convoluted story about giving her money for the two thousand dollars or starting a business and it's really difficult to understand exactly what he's saying in that regard so he he corroborated her on a number of levels seas reliability and one of them obviously is that as i just said part of the statement was validated by her testimony by his testimony and this is a statement against her pe argument in his brief he didn't raise the specific arguments that he's making now and in any event i would argue that the immigration judge implicitly weighed all the factors and  that he had about the gentleman's credibility and the question that the state department report raises with respect to whether or not conditions now in india are day for six i mean it seems that the think part reports in the record established rather categorically that say six are this conflict is over that six are just fine they're well represented in indian society as a whole they have sic representatives in the national well that may be true i believe that our already said now that i don't think it should have been admissible and that i do think that it's appropriate for me to raise that now if i can in the brief because i do believe it was brought up in the  possibility issues the burning of the documents the government seems to think that that was some sort of that would have been some kind of exculpatory evidence to the police to say here i'm not involved is about this but those letters according to pitch your testimony in that's that was that was an unfortunate lie made in a different immigration context but in an attempt to remain in the country in a different context looking up on what judge could and that might lose credibility as to the other instances of him being a refugee or not but but more than being a part of a plan just to stay in any means necessary i