he doesn't he's clean shaven he doesn't appear he's not very good turban and he says it over and over again and he starts off on the master calendar focus attention on what i think is a hard parts i mean there are some questions and i understand your your concerns about what the i j a sad but i think there has to be things your clients concerned about to get out of a hard one specifically the initial and it's a two page declaration now the second page says on top in the start of two thousand two hundred and if you wish i was killed and somebody has crossed off the start one day in march after that he was in judicial lockup which is a much much lower standard of incarceration and so we don't know whether he was in custody in august and he also says he never s so i think that these dates ordinarily they're not necessarily important but here they can go to the heart of his claim you know he has for this is not the only he's this is the last incident that that's thank you for the argument i will hear from the attorney general rule protection under the convention against torture the immigration judge gave multiple reasons for doubting the petitioners credibility and therefore denied him asylum in withholding or moon protection the convention against torture on the spaces the board upheld that the termination february two thousand and two and yet there are two affidavits from his friends who said the murder also happened in two thousand and two these are this is the major inconsistent it goes to the heart of the silent claim because at the time the murder occurred that some mysterious whether or not he your honor speculating on whether or not the immigration judge was so biased in terms of rain in her opinion this error was harmless because she also identified other reasons for doubting the petitioners credibility even assuming that this still colors these determinations the board of immigration appeals identified two other issues that the immigration judge sided in a fight and supporting a determination so any possible bias i might have been exhibited by the immigration judge was wiped away when the board of immigration feels heard reviewed the decision and then still upheld the decision for reasons other than because the petitioner did not really prove that he was a seat so there are still two other independent reasons that sufficed to sustain the scribbled determination and under this court's precedent you only need to have is the question of whether they i j came into this and had developed such skepticism toward petitioners case because of her disbelief that he was a seat because he didn't look like other sikhs that she's used to  influenced her unduly with regard to the kind of the entirety if you have a biased decision maker findings of fact that otherwise might be sustained could be called into question why isn't that a problem here and there is no evidence on the record  and then identify potential reasons for why she was skeptical then in addition to that she identified real interest distances between a petitioner's testimony and documentary evidence are also finding him incredible so without evidence that the so regardless of whether or not you want to speculate internally that she was a bias against the opinion this court can do that because it must decide the petition for review on the administrative record and on the record as it stands there's no evidence of bias and so even if even assuming that reason was faulty to rely on average credibility a term to base adverse credibility terminations on there are still other reasons that are valid and supported by the record and the first one being that there's interest in see of dates regarding whether or not  this person came from the rooftops with guns of policemen and then decide to try to kill him yet he didn't see this person she said it was his mother there is simply no evidence the record t suggest to reconcile the thing consistency and the position of counsel brings up the fact that this person this person father is very high rate of the government so much so that his buddies the prime minister that it's possible that his son was able to freely go sleep as he was in jail however there's no evidence or records of support this in addition there's actually a newspaper article that states that the that the the murders father was actually dismissed from the political party because of his corrupt activities and so there is simply no evidence the evidence the record actually supports the contrary to a petition against the suggestion so the judge at the end of the day when you're reviewing this decision there are two independent reasons for