the original newspaper after the forensics experts conclude that in any way that the article itself had not come from some other newspaper no you're right did you ever identify another newspaper where it came from you know your honor we did was part of we know what we have it as we have something that appears to be a newspaper clipping that has been pasted over another newspaper and try to pass off as part of the original that's correct your honor and the petitioner must question it did appear to be paced he had knowledge that we don't have that we don't have an a we don't have an original of this article because then in the record all we have is a is a photocopy is a xerox copy of the newspaper now is that all he was able to produce was a paste something onto every copy what it even if you had to stop the crest it makes it would explain the typos that are in that are in there that is somebody was hurrying to get something out although doesn't really seem like this would be the kind of article the one with stop the presses for different stories as to how he gets the article in one in one account he is there when grace comes to the apartment in the other he is not there when grace comes to the apartment so we have some problem as to how we get as to how we physically get this she told dunst a lady brought it and asked for me and then she says that she has got a letter from home and then she left the letter there then i opened it and i after the asylum interview a we are told that this lady was there you need something to you know it was a surprise and what was the n home when she comes by that this newspaper will corroborate a report that there were that there were three members of the u t y that were that were kidnapped two of them appear to appear in this proceeding mr young guy and his friend  problem is that except for his friends testimony everything he offers depends upon his own testimony and if he can't be believed with regard to something that's fairly simple and straightforward why can't the i a fairly say that he lacks credibility and he can't be believed for everything else as well what's wrong with that determination well your honor according to the standard of review  so how are we supposed to know whether he's accurate about everything else there's other evidence that would be propounded and and and to overcome this and i think there was i mean there was the document that the court concede wouldn't it because it was a these two men were among three members of the party who were kidnapped at the same time and are missing so i would offer an explanation as to why they would have similar stories because they were kidnapped at the same time it  leaving graves whom he knew from uganda came by as house knocked on his door while he was there handed him a newspaper personally and said that his uncle had given it to her so that she could go to her sister or brothers graduation and drop it off on the way article he did not specifically say that he knew or should have known frankly when i look at it looks to me there are two different reproductions in the record from memory correctly one which had been superimposed with another page and one which had some clarity and but the tex over another article and picture it looks like there's two problems one is that it appears that you've got a bottom half of the other half of a page that's been pasted over top of the top half of a page perhaps to pick up the date and the identity of the newspaper the second is that it appears to he considered the cause report he also did not consider whether he was actually persecuted on account of his political opinion which is another problem of this case might have dozens of the democrats correct he said he was going to democrat the first testimony was in august of two thousand and the second testimony ten months later in june of two thousand and one continues the number is continuing but if you look at the bottom of the transcript page it indicates a different date so the testimony was about ten months apart still the difference between whether your uncle that at the time you called them or not that at the time and whether you knew the person who delivered you the newspaper or not should not be the type of variations that happened in ten months and twenty two in june the second time when he's asked last testify that they were both gone at the time she brought it back but that the lady was quote looking for you know all of us unquote which is slightly different than both of the interactions that mr morning again and some your honor  the i just said it didn't fall in the top five percent where he knew he was believable didn't found the bottom five percent we knew is clearly lying he said it was kind of a fifty fifty case he was halting and i'm certain he didn't know whether to believe him or not and that he doesn't believe in sending people back to this from that he was in army training for two weeks and then the incident he related happened right after he got out of training and then they ran away and then they got that correct