petition must be examined and we think that the judge's conclusions are incorrect denied the petitioner silane in part because my client by substantial evidence remember that the petitioner was a mere seven years old when his father was killed by the government for supporting us we also  possibility whether the explanations slothful the respondent or the petitioner did give a plausible explanation as to the inconsistency he was able to explain it simply that he thought kurdish democratic party to not have to go through because the judge was asking whether the respondents of the petitioners father support of the kurds are the democrats democratic party but we have in the record credible testimony that been change country conditions and so we've argued in our brief that the judge's conclusion there was premature i mean this was shortly after the war had begun and although not on the record  the country condition reports from the state department show that it wasn't until many months later after the war that these militias were formed to go out and harm christians if there are no further questions i'll reserve the rest of my i thought it was of some interest that when he applied for asylum before the asylum judge or the asylum officer the asylum officers put in his asylum notice you are and arriving alien checked and this notice is being issued after an asylum officer has found that the respondent has demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture that's right on page five sixty one of the record in other words the asylum officer that saw this guy the first guy who interviewed him who went through everything and did everything that he was supposed to do wrote right in the application that he found the respondent to have demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture and then based on whether he could put his father in the right place or not whether he could say exactly what happened as to whether he was beaten to blood or not he was there for incredible now tell me that i'm supposed the testimony the comes before him into his decision or i understand it or not he's done what he had in front of him and the reasons he said we don't have an adverse credibility germination seems a little difficult they found that his testimony in application were inconsistent the weather here isn't father support was the kurdish people or the party unable to distinguish that's a little worrisome to me then the next one is that while in the iraqi prison he was beat but because he was beat with a sticky should have burned because he didn't say blair he was inconsistent and therefore he shouldn't be credible  know community this is a different issue this is an issue of two parties that are fighting for control in his region he did not not even able to identify that he did not even know what they work and then the second meijer how old was he  cannot overturn the credibility determination that's the big question because my friend has laid it out very good for you but we have to deal with the fact that somebody from the government has already made that determination  officer with his jabs to do something and this particular individual could have us by giving him asylum but it must be the government's general approach now just make them have that make that determination let somebody else make the last determination because they're country conditions which apply and so therefore here we are in a situation with an i j with this being the best you can come up with on credibility and i'm supposed to sustain that that's why we're asking the question not that we disagree but we're trying to put it in the most positive light for the petitioner and then have you say something that will help us right rather that you don't know and i don't know that that is not my understanding i think you have another question ok want to put feel you may not know the answer to this is it customary for the immigration judge to pay much