bringing evidence he has an obligation to give the to bring that to the attention of the applicant and give him an opportunity to respond he never raised these cooperation issues that he cited in his decision with the  for the failure to present that corroborating evidence arises to say ok now we're getting into credibility area you just said point blank i don't think that makes you very credible do they respond then you're saying that when the end comes when the judge decides you know we have a credibility we have to start hearing again and some process it's just that during the course of the proceeding if if there are these issues that trouble the immigration judge that you know raise issues about dealings credibility the judge has an obligation to give the alien an opportunity to respond lawyer or me or what's the function of the lawyer in this credibility dialoguing gaging i agree that that would be an issue where there's a huge issue about you know a huge credibility issue that no one's going over luck but if it's not if it's more subtle than that if it's something that the immigration judge is thinking but the lawyer may not then the immigration judge has an obligation to raise it so that point i would direct you to second circuit law which makes exactly that distinction but in our second what i'm saying i  case back to give the alien the opportunity to respond rather than simply say well you didn't you didn't give him an opportunity to respond to these five things so we're going to ignore those five things it makes more sense in the context of this case to send the case back to the judge so he can be  written but again it just begs the question as to why this particular has been this particular guy's been targeted for that sort of extortion and the answer to that is what's dispositive of this case and the answer to that is that he's been targeted for the six starvation and these beatings because of his no reason to believe that the police would would suspect this guy of being involved in constant but that rests on his belief that he really had no connection to speak as on that particular point the immigration judge again he's just wrong he's ignoring i don't believe any of that that's like trying to convince me that republicans and democrats and washington break bread together and that what about the focuses on three omissions between the declaration and the testimony and says these are suspicious because  using a lot of our cases that talk about opportunities to explain right well i think i was new to the court he had an opportunity to explain that he had questioning before by the immigration judge by government charney and more most importantly by linchpin because i think in all the cases where this credibility germination by the i j a if there's some circuit law which we have a lot of it because a certain procedure be had he missed it up the credibility finding goes out the window in the case turns over that's what councils arguing you're just saying there's no credibility issue under our law that we have to worry about record is correct evidence submitted excuse me that the alien country conditions showed that indians in that country were arrested and detained and beaten in order to appeared to point to that was the primary statute that many indian police were using it's an anti terrorism statute to go after these people under even though using militant anti terrorism in india in fact there are also a few other record sites and in the record there's a record up on the mystery record for twenty the record states that police will sometimes quote unquote use politics to arrest people for other reasons in fact politics is not the reason why they're arresting certain people will tell you that to get money or or other other issues it's about our circuit law relative to the interaction of and his stance there was that the police know that in order to get money out at the beach and so now we're up against our law and it sounds like we're in a fax with every situation with our law which distinguishes even though you were beaten if th arrested me to make money and or to extort money there was one thirty eight one fifty five one seventy three to forty all those records where he stated that they simply would arrest him in order to make money off well that's a nice paraphrase i don't think he said exactly when thirty eight one thirty eight one fifty five one seventy three to forty and in fact some of the most interesting citations are actually the one forty two to one interpret that i think that's very important i think it left a lot of credibility to what he's saying in that situation that he himself raised the issue that money was was the reason i want to point out post i one quick othe one forty two and one forty three where in fact he was leaving that home and they simply took the money and there was there was no beating they just took a bribery from his family and also on one forty three there was he mentioned that the police would not go to his say that he recently came to the house and wouldn't go to the office whatever they were still questioning him along the same lines that he's relying on that underlying political reason in other words police are coming to the house because they continue to harass him and because of his political so called political affiliation or knowledge how do we handle that relative to the payment when the when he comes the house and there's no doubt they got the ping when they came to the house but they came to question it but well i think that shows that they came simply for the you take money but my health condition is not good but they did not they say oh you will tell your answers and also confess it's obvious from that that not only were they interested in money they wanted him to use the problem i have with your case so you've seen missed on page five of the administrative record the b i a says even if the test respondents testimony were credible probably read this as many times as i am we find that he's not met his burden of establishing that they persecuted him on the on a protected ground and then they talk about a legitimate reason to just saying right there's no question about that they say he had they had a legitimate basis meaning the police for questioning the respondent and then here's the key as responded admitted during his testimony the police detained him for information you know saying so they're saying sure they had a legitimate ground to pick this right up but they separate the beating from any political motive by saying the only reason they were doing that was to get money right here that's ridiculous passages that you're referring to that you and i interpret that is referring only to the second ar about the one thousand nine hundred nine are asked and it's in the context of discussing that one thousand nine hundred ninety arrest that they make that statement and if you look at the passages that they cite to transcript of eighty three eighty five eighty six that's all second arrest that particular finding there is all about the i would beg to differ on that because there's absolutely nothing in this record nothing at all to suggest that mr martin that the police had any specific interest in him in terms of criminal proceedings where i'm saying i mean this is very much unlike d you know that we were talking about earlier this week because indeed you there the police had a very clear specific law enforcement objective that man was accused of shooting an unarmed civilians here there's nothing like that there's absolutely nothing except his alleged