asylum for two reasons first the immigration judge was too stringent in his credibility finding these matters that don't go to the heart of the asylum claim to determine that the response was not credible second the judge failed to allow certain evidence that would go to prove the petitioner sql aim of the petitioners fear a return to armenia i fail to allow those those matters into evidence despite the fact that this court has rule harsh upon a person who's here with relatively little resources to send documents to a country where he has no ties to he has very little ability to do so  before the i g hearing i believe it could be three or four years your honor so maybe you can make some kind of effort in the course of three or four years but yes you could have however the point is that how would that make the documents more washer the point maybe how about those documents prove that he was credible i mean if the documents come in based on his say so and the whole issue in the case is whether he's credible i'm not sure the documents going to make any difference anyway well documents corroborate statements but see the documents are in only because he says what they are and if he's not credible or deemed credible the court there's no reason for the for the immigration court to think the documents are anything other than fabrications because he they're the documents other than the one nine hundred ninety nine death certificate which is an official public document the other three were just letters correct no your honor i believe the documents for there were taps three through s armenia to show at least an effort to try to do so as opposed to just put in a document in no effort trying to because of the there's a there's a high probability that if you sent documents documents he gave them to how this person that he gave them to got them into the united states chain of custody questions but your honor i see nothing in the evidence about how he got the documents or you have the documents you had to present right authentic and it's simply not in the record that they are what they say they are that they came from who he says they came from there's no evidence that he didn't alter the in some way it's simply not there you're  before the immigration judge and three before the board of immigration appeals and in each case he did not satisfy his birth the immigration judge found that there were there were elements in his testimony that made it very for a certain amount of time and then he said that at some point there was one of the soldiers who was guarding him during this period of upbeat again tortures he was able to give th organizations with security his release the immigration judge did not believe that that was possible not it is a recurring problem in immigration cases that the specific testimony about what happened to this individual comes soley from that individual because nobody else is in the room and can speak to it i'm not sure a case law says the i j a can lean back and say i don't believe it you have whatever reason and that's the end of it in fact our case law seems to say that that got to have to deal specifically with the with the testimony as to the credibility of the alien affleck at that point and justify terminations that that that testimony is not credible and something more than just doesn't sound right to trier of fact he's allowed to speculate and i take it you acknowledge that our case law which is not always crystal clear and a straight line does frequently reject adverse credibility terminations i think based upon speculation on the part of the immigration judge so here i turn to how an armenian prison operates with the immigration judge not likely and certainly not attesting to having any expertise in that subject he just says to him i doesn't sound right to me where in fact there is an us history plenty of instances  of prisoners in prison guards who form relationships and and prisoners who have gotten out because resistance from prison guards south i'm just not so sure that i could be persuaded by by the notion of that seems unlikely to me the problem that you mentioned that much of the testimony comes only from the alien is balanced against the problem of searching for the truth and the congress has decided that in those conflicting  credible but it can be overturned only if something in the evidence compels that mr tan was testifying credibly there were other inconsistency is this this a description of how he got out of prison which the immigration judge found to be implausible was not the only reason the immigration judge while he was in his hearing as opposed to the statement that he provided with his immigration aside and up you stated that the note contained three sentences in his asylum application he stated that now read i am not guilty i don't believe that i can prove it whereas it is hearing he said the second sentence was i don't believe i can survive instance that the immigration judge found impossible was that when mr detained said he he provided any photo fliers today said that showed him clean shaven and then he appeared at the consulate to pick out that they have this visa interview and he had a heavy beard and a having mustache and he testified that he was not asked a single question about his appearance or about document that does the test does on its face anyway say that he was in prison why wouldn't that be enough to remand it to the idea to take another look at it if in fact  recognized that it could be done by any manner and cited to our con case but it's not clear when he gets down to that document why he decides   section two eighty seven point six doesn't even apply to it it only applies to copies and i'm not sure whether i mean that's just whether that's that is if that but that's the whole crux i guess ok well thank you very much original documents that's not something that in practice would happen if i only had a copy it would not go into the record at all because especially nowadays with different friends extents things that the government requires of documents we document the criteria of the immigration judge did not allow anybody no matter what kind of testimony what kind of evidence they would have presented to it to be granted happened in january in december i'll is imprisonment such a common event in this person's life that you can lose a month in light of everything that had happened to him up till then yes your honor i mean his wife w he was taken from the country was born and moved across the border by by soldiers then he was then he was evicted from the hotel where he was staying then he was beaten and arrested it could be that yes well a normal person if this is the only thing that happens to them in their life is the fact that they get arrested maybe they know the exact day but a seventy year old man who's have all this happened in the last seventy isn't quite as far away and