becomes clear for us as we read the transcript of the proceedings is that notwithstanding that every responded before the immigration court is entitled to have an attorney presen we have a difficult time we find her starts going page after page through that transcript with one person in that courtroom asking questions and finding themselves over and over again trying to determine well we know that by the time opposing counsel filed his brief in this case both thing had already been deported had already been removed to india and it took only a few days for the agency through to new travel documents the issue of identity that became a core issue for the charge and the voluntary departure and actually questioning the testimony as to who this thing to respond it was was resolved immediately by the agency the same documents that this petitioner before this court filed in connection with his application those same documents were immediately used by the agency to remove him from the united states i think that we have a difficult situation in immigration that needs to be addressed the net is it seems to me that the fundamental issue here is the credibility to the fundamental issue here is the credibility determinations and the extent to which they are supported by the record and they are not and i think you identify this whole passport issue as one which is not very persuasive certainly from the standpoint of the record but there are at least four issues it seems to me which are the credibility issues which are supported by the record the the the names of the militants for example the role of  respondent before the immigration judge never is able to continue with his direct examination and we have the judge taking over that examination and the responded in front of me for issue is what happened who was there and how is it that you were released no one goes beyond that we we start short and that instance where we're trying to identify the beating it becomes so most impossible and then to at the end of the record to conclude well i think that there's been too many inconsistences candidly we haven't had anyone present case so that we can see what occurs for that one hour or two hours that we have three individuals trying to ascertain information and different questions being asked and then at the end of the confusion able to go beyond i can figure all that dust storm that develops there and we're able to see what his claim is i think we recognize that he put forth his claim he was able to identify when he was arrested militants from the pro dollar tiger force come to his home and then the next morning he's taken by the police and has seven days of beatings on the first occasion seven days on the next occasion and then there's this warrior gaff and then all of a sudden he's being accused of potentially of murdering a hindu businessman is called in for that and he decides to leave india because he's afraid of what's going to happen to him as a result of being potentially charged with this murder of the hindu businessmen find it very interesting in a record a page eighty six first of all i want to be clear so that's the reason why he left india in court and his written application he was being potentially threatened with being accused of this murder page eighty six the record is directly asked why did you leave india he didn't say anything about this murder of the he did visit spend the first thing that comes out of his mouth is answer milton six used to come to my home he's talking necessarily from his own experience born in this country someone who is from another country someone who speaks another language at times their testimony no matter how skilled our  that will surface throughout the testimony of an individual that will have to be weighed in in considering the credibility of the individual and should not be sufficient to if you becomes very very troublesome for me after years and years of looking at these cases and i mean been a former trial attorney myself is that we have just from the get go a