at the end i did what she should have done at that time if she proceeded to address that corroboration which she addressed the car arbitration she did it doubt the credibility of it she in fact then and then request more corroboration and that leaves that mr saying in a dilemma because first of all he provided the credible testimony to to be a president that requires additional who are british but there's no explanation of what issues they wanted specifically addressed and what evidence they believe he did not provide now that the opinion that they felt that mr singh was a militant the petitioner was a militant so that is clear that the government did that so again that goes back to it's not clear why the board of immigration appeals wanted additional corroboration and on that issue i of course i don't agree that mr singh's testimony on the question was big let me  that beatings are torture we have here beatings the stretching of the legs and at the end we would contend that that qualifies as torture and turns the tables on you and you're left at the appellate level of trying to provide i'm not really having an opportunity of being told what corroboration you need and without  up more with respect to the petitioners credibility and those issues were reversed by the board but i i don't think it's inconsistent for someone to have a government job and then the whole then hold an opinion against the government it happens all the time but in this context now we're speculating because o to that the first of which is whether or not this cousin was a militant or not and to be clear the board of course did not find that there was ample support for the credibility determination but one level below that they found that nevertheless the testimony the evidence given wasn't clear enough to support his burden of proof and again there were three specific reasons really  think that's the whole problem with the testimony but why does it matter really what the question lies well it goes to show first of all if he is a militant it would tend to bolster the claim of the fact that the police were after him  but of course that is undercut and this is something that the alludes to in terms of the ambiguity or the vagueness or the lack of clarity with the testimony he also petitioner also states you're saying that the government wouldn't award contracts militants so they're on one and he says you may be a militant then he says with the government wouldn't war contracts to milt since which of course his cousin received contracts for then he said there was no rumors in the community of his cousin being a militant and then of course the issue of his friend's affidavit came up and he was confronted with the fact that according to the after david the afghan says which is a friend of mr saying that of the transcript it's fate stamped at the bottom zero zero zero one four one this is from the  and i'm looking at last starting at line eight and this is his answer next day again they took off my clothes taken off and they beat me they were asking about the cause of that why he had come to your house that there were where and then over on page fifty three line eight they would verbal abuse me about helping comest on them yes your honor and then a little further down they were convinced that i am the only one who helped because that that's exactly what happened to him given the citations of the board to the other vague vagaries of his testimony it would perhaps support an alternate conclusion but of course this court would have to be compelled to find the record w compel the alternate finding in this case so i certainly agree with your honor that it could support the conclusion that she was detained for that reason but but that is not the standard of review in this case  i don't believe there is your and i can't think of anything offhand as to what the other reason may be but of course this is only what this is the only thing that he testified to as far as a record he goes that's all that we have well if he has a positive credibility  of course state they did not support the adverse credibility finding the board though does sort of fall short of stating that everything that was stated was credible in this big case it really comes down to the board stating i'm not or we're not sure exactly what to believe  it doesn't mean that his credibility is adverse but it falls short of crediting everything that he states because if you do that you might have inconsistency is within the record or not the sufficient clarity as to what his claim really is before the court is whether or not there the record is there is substantial evidence to support their finding that the testimony wasn't clear enough to support his case and that really is the only issue before the court if the court finds that certainly the record compels the finding that he did make out that plain despite the board's citations to the vagaries of the testimony then this court would have of course have to remain back to the board so that the board can determine whether or not he was persecuted whether and of course whether or not the persecution adverse credibility finding but it in terms of the sufficiency of the evidence that was given i guess to the issue before this court is whether or not testimony that was given was sufficient or the record compels a finding years for supporting those where i think that taken in conjunction of course the board didn't explicitly refer to that and i can only speculate as to what their overall how they're finding fit into the grand picture of things of whether or not the testimony that he had and the things that he found fake that the board found being i should say in terms of whether or not his cousin was a militant would which would bolster that playing in conjunction with the fact that he testified that he was beaten and these things were said to him the board apparently found that those two things working together apparently still aren't enough to support political opinion or in future political opinion if she would have found him credible and i would have to look at the transcript but we did cite that and everything i can provide that for you and all of those you proceeded to address the issue of change country conditions and she said that the change that the favor the government's argument as i understand it is that if this panel catalogue results the any factual conflict between your client specific testimony and the cia's concerns about sorry i'm not i think i understand your question i would have thought your response to my question would have been out that the cia have the opportunity to do that but is resolved any conflict issues whether then this court was not in a position to resolve those issues whether or not remember be appropriate but our position is it even assuming that  persecution a kind of a protective ground i understand your position thank you thank you and i thank you very much