yes good morning your honor may it please the court richard tarzi on behalf of the petitioner lang i'd st like to point out to the court the immigration judge's decision where she says that she's considered the totality of the circumstances including the respondents demeanor up testifying the response of nests of the questions are asked the parent plausibility of his claim and the consistency of his statements and documentary evidence the real problem here is she didn't do any of that there was no analysis of the entire record the judge only focused on a rd party omission that's all she did in her in her decision actually the petitioners testimony was consistent with the record it was consistent with a prior statement that he had made when he was detained by our government the credible fear interview he gave is exactly the same testimony he gave in court but the judge makes no mention of any of that she only focuses on an omission made by a rd party and finds the petitioner not credible now this court has said in the gal case that rd party omissions are less provocative of credibility than  other than briefly talking about the omission now that's contrary to the law the law says you have to look at the entire record you can't just gloss over the good stuff and find somebody not credible based important to note that the question was asked to explain why someone didn't mention something and he says basically i don't know we can expect the petitioner to know what someone else is thinking especially since it was would say isn't one of the problems that the issue of the blacklist and most of the ngs knowledge that he was on the blacklist is not something that was disclosed until cross examination and then that is compounded by the fact that rd parties who were also in a position to know that never said anything about it in their submission but we often see in court that people explain more than what's in the written statement you know no one asked them direct about this is my explanation for why i have a well founded fear of persecution throughout china because i am on this list and it's tied in with an identification card and i know this because the police told my father or the local authorities told my father and father confronted with information like that you know it's important for the ability and he thought that your child can remain and in his country of birth  and porton and our mission is that i would say it's not important but it can't be the sole basis of our credibility finding especially if you don't look at everything else in the record you know what about his demeanor what about the response of th questions of plausibility disclaiming the consistency of what's on the record including a statement he gave with no lawyer present to our government when he was detained when he crossed over the border there's no analysis of any of that we just look at what domitian and say well you're not credible i don't think that's the  board of immigration appeals and he was found not credible and you'll note that he at did testified for the st time about being on a government blacklist and that is a clear however this court has held that that particular de novo review of an egypt is decision is not to determine whether or not the immigration judge didn't know who but clearly arrogant issuing its decision its whether or not the board to show that he suffered from path persecution and he can't do that with any independent cooperating evidence and he doesn't address that issue in his opening read the its way  yes that's the money that he was army government walk with secondhand information from his father and his father does not see that in his letter so this is different than an omission  less productive then i think contradictions on credibility you know you cannot your honor are no other questions and if you finish your arguments you could rely on your brief oh ok i would just like to add one more thing which is that even assuming credibility the evidence on the record christianity in the united states that was being speculative and he didn't raise that issue before the board and therefore he didn't the boss administrative remedy that if you so the tort would not be able to review that and with regard to the nd issue  the council just said i don't agree with their credibility testimony alone credible testimony alone is sufficient to prove asylum you don't need to corroborate your case with outside documentation if the petitioners felt to be credible it can be sufficient and pass persecution is also can also be sufficient to prove asylum you don't need necessarily a well founded fear of future persecution if you not analyzing tire record and then made a conclusion that the omission was such that it's insufficient for a positive credibility finding that would have been ok but to not look at the entire record is an era of law the law says the totality of the circumstances there has to be an analysis of that in order for the judge's decision to be upheld