asylum the transcript really doesn't go to many issues that revolve around the well you start off with a you know with a difficult situation here there's the problem with it isn't transcript it was never brought out as to what took place at the time of that interview who prepared the application how the application was prepared and why the  probably pretty clearly are true but there are things here that would dramatically increase the probability of him getting the likelihood of your client getting asylum if they were true and i take it that you are not standing here today and telling us that those things are in fact  correct no not since they were marked and he specifically stated that they were incorrect the problem with all of that is none of us know at least i don't know we took the case on the ninth circuit stage and we were not present at the time of the original  had a full hearing he walked away from everything that he said in his asylum is the siloam application and offered a different a different story so we start right off upfront by by saying i came before an asylum officer and i lied about my reasons for coming to the united states that's a law i took place private was sworn in at the time that that he was sworn in he admitted to the asylum officer that he was denying everything on the application so therefore based upon his  have ruled that once you are sworn in that's when the determination is made as to whether or not this one testimony the fact that he submitted the document to the ins with all the incorrect information on there of testimony in this case the other problem is that there must have been three or four different attorneys that took over this case and originally during the original proceedings with judge gordon there was a request that he  perception and everybody perception of this application i don't believe so because of the fact that the judge still granted voluntary departure to the to the truest and voluntary parts one of the grounds is that you  a person of good moral character and if you come to the conclusion that their testimony was incredible then why grant them voluntary departure not why not order a deportation of these people based upon their incredible testimony  your clients and some slack on that but i'm not sure i would have a quite a moral character question with the question of complete credibility with you testified but let's turn to that if you would turn of the two grounds that your client claimed in the hearing that he w a communist affiliated union requested what he referred to as progressive taxation which sounds like it might have any sort of payments of some kind to support their activities he doesn't even own this company more the company's been dissolved so what's what's the problem if he goes back to affiliated union might continue to persecute him when he returned even though he no longer owns a company that can pay the money that's correct the n p a and the can you were continuing to potentially consider his nonpayment of the taxes even though the company's no longer in existence as a political opinion and do they have any evidence for that is there any evidence yet that the that they will that they will persecute him when on his return to the philippines no there's nothing there's nothing that i can cite that would show other than the fact that the n p a still has a foothold in the in the philippines that they still are considered to be politically involved and committing the murders of the union that demand d the payment was the union that his employees belong to is not correct point your honor that based upon what took place i really don't believe that he did get a fair trial do do due process based upon the judge's refusing to take any evidence into testimony  seems to be in order in some of these what if you were you know what if you go back and he says well somebody else you know just made up story and  completely agree that he seemed to cut off a lot of things but your client had a full and fair opportunity to present a case that said that i've got threatening phone calls here are threatening letters i've got family members my former partners are  are have bodyguards because of continuing threats and that might have been interesting evidence might have been useful in reality he doesn't present any of that why should we give him a second chance because he didn't think because he failed after the first one and it's difficult to understand why he should be given a difficult it's a second chance but if you take a look at the trial of the transcript the judge cut off every single avenue of his attorneys trying to ask him questions about anything that took place well as he did as he did cut off the application where there was consider fraudulent or credible or not is not the issue here the judge never made an explicit credibility finding and therefore as a result we would assume that the petition testified credibly under the circuit's law facts of the application it is really not an issue before this court so much of the immigration judge thought forge an application was worrisome but he didn't say that his testimony was not credible per se so i think th court feel ok not to have to worry about that particular application and why he submitted the application as such the bottom line is to judge never explicitly found not credible and so we have to look to his testimony opinion that was opposed to the can you and he received the rat and i'm wondering why imputed political opinion welfare of the company and that he paid taxes to the government already that there is no need to pay taxes to can you and so there was no mixed motive type of impute of political opinion in here which  some other cases before this court this court has found out to be the case so in this particular instance the petition has just said he didn't want to pay the money for the good of the company he never had any political filiation whatsoever he testified that he's not political opinion whatsoever  we also want to rest assured court that in terms of due process the petitioner had an interview before the asylum officer where he basically gave him a different story from his asylum application after there after he also had a hearing before the immigration and the fact that the immigration judge may have been short he was perhaps perturbed at the fraudulent application or what have you we don't know why but in any event the petitioner had a full and fair hearing he had many opportunities