decision following the reopening and following the remand back to the immigration judge simply echoed that theme since they were requiring the judge to look at specifically the credibility t proof applicable to his other to his claims and i'm trying to understand whether that's a non decision about credibility and acceptance of his credibility or an acceptance of the i much on the other hand the at least the i want to see that again doesn't say you didn't really change your analysis thanks for the reason stated before that your credibility finding is faulty it simply says he even that the item gratian judge has not really addressed the matter properly in its decision and they're going to assume that he is credible but that the court was taking issue with the other why didn't they just say that that that that we find th i would say that it was a big it was the given the fact that the b i had already touched on this matter in great detail a previous decision here's the reason i'm asking the question i want you to assume for the purpose of this question that we agree with you that  the only at least nothing b i get you under ventura wouldn't we have to send it back to the b i a e a to look specifically at credibility in other words it's kind of a long winded question if the testimony establishes persecution but we're not sure the testimony is true because the big guy hasn't made an explicit decision isn't the answer we send it back to the going to believe it to be i have made it explicit decision but if you find that the that the person grecian true i believe that that would be sufficient enough to make a decision on this case without having to go back to  that's a credibility issue with a german as you know if they didn't do that middle east they didn't do it explicitly so you're asking us kind of look through the second decision to the first one that's correct and assuming credibility fact that stated he did suffer persecution of the hands of the national people's army in the philippines if you tell testimony about a number of instances that occurred in what he regarded was the n p a involvement and harassing him and some thing we consider what the board has you know you're on now in this case so to go back to my hypothetical if we disagree with the government's position on whether the facts take in this true equal persecution then we would have to that and we find that he did meet his burden of proof that that's the only the inescapable conclusion is that he met his burden of proof if he was truthful it seems to me we have two choices that that juncture one is to say it wanted to agree with the r j one choice was to say well now we're satisfied that he's not credible and so we don't have to go any further the other choice is the choice that they took which is to assume that he a well founded dear persecution and to state that the questioner had not done anything to the contrary to establish a well founded fear in light of the presumption being regarded and in this case do you really want to go back on credibility that is to say as i read to be the first time around they said to the i j a you were really off base in your address credibility finding go back and do it again as i read with the o and a series of anonymous things happen to him which i take to be looked at most in his favor an attempt to get him to that's what was happening that this organization which was political wanted him back wanted him to become a member instead of protecting ground i believe so your honor i mean it is political opinion it was a political group whether he was a part of the group or not a part of the group his decision was seen by the group as making a political decision that if you're either with us or you're against us they called him in that same page in which the government cited page one hundred one of the records up early on the page a body to do whatever they're doing regardless of the opinion that the person holds i guess that's what where i'm i guess i'm mulling over whether wanting somebody to help it's the same thing as being mad at them for opinion that whole that's difference in your i believe your honor he was a member of the group for four months and he was privy to some information according to his testimony that was that detrimental perhaps to the organization if it got out and they could have felt it was more it was more that's beneficial to them to have him in the fold where they could control the release of that information rather than to have an outside where they do not know what would happen but if that is that persec political opinions did not follow their political opinions as they wanted it to and i believe that that does constitute a grounds for finding that these actions were made on the count of his political  noted simply decided that his original opinion on credibility was insufficient regardless of what the board has instruct him to do and the board having founded details made to details a vision regarding credibility regarding