immigration judge that were both of held by the board of immigration appeals first of all i'd like to say that these issues are both appropriately before this court because they were raised before the v a and actually address and  introduced the negative credibility finding and then brought out and hammered home again this negative credibility inference of the asylum officer i know that the immigration judge also took that and i think ran with that he specifically asked questions judge who although he might have said i'm not going to look at the credibility issue you could've eliminated that by simply striking that second page all of the statements could have been brought in and there is no reason to introduce that credibility a termination in i think then you would have at least had that out of the record that would've been the first when the judge would have done a strike that credibility not admit that credibility terminations strike that secondly cut off questioning position to make that as the judge recognized in its order and i think the prejudice also goes to the fact that this wouldn't have otherwise come up this evidence would not have been admitted this line of questioning would not have gone in have been investigated fair hearing and this should be reminded for that purpose didn't the immigration judge say that he was going to consider credibility to know that the immigration judge did say that but i don't think  and the was found not to have met her burden of proof because she was not credible now the petitioners have brought a variety of specific challenges to the adverse credibility determination in this case but it really is the underlying issue in this case whether she was credible so i'd like issues you're talking about i'm talking about the challenge to the average credibility and i'm sorry challenge to the admission of the credibility determination into the record actually as a preliminary point i'd like to address the opposing counsel comment that the average credibility determination itself was the issue in any of those documents the issue was purely to pre hearing statement as a whole that pleading was admitted late that was the issue  credibility determination he the challenges to that document being admitted into evidence in anything including speed assessment and the credibility determination which is what the policy is about in the brief to the way as i mentioned the this at this stage of the proceedings mr wall street was well aware of the adverse credibility finding and we can look to the record at page sixty seven of the record it's a transcript of the initial appearance before the immigration judge what we see is that mr credibility issue in this case and if the government is going to enter this assessment this very document that was against the policy if the government's going to enter that in we want to cross examine the asylum officer so it was  to sort of preempt the credibility issue from the very beginning through cross examination also the underline policy in this that the memorandum has never been held to have the force of law are just as another matter petitioners bring this as a due process claim but this is not a situation that evokes due process in in other civil context prior administrative findings by officers are admissible andriy are eight of three eight so even though the agency has chosen to limit the evidence that may be admitted this is not a constitutional what we have overall in this case is a situation where petitioner was given three opportunities to present evidence on her asylum claim in the asylum application to the asylum officer and to the immigration judge at each of these stages she relied on her own testimony to make that claim and at each stage her stories got bigger more violent and more unbelievable in her asylum application petitioner listed events alleged events of persecution that included losing jobs being excluded from schools  include those five incidents by saying that her attorney had affirmatively instructed her not to include those incidents in her affidavit based on this just very basic summary of the fact that credibility problems with ms causeless testimony are fairly credibility ruling will be up held so long as identified in constituencies go to the heart of the claim and we see that because these are just not incidents are so extreme are so violent and the explanations for them are so implausible that the ad that there is specific the adverse credibility challenge there was limited because that's exclusively to the question of whether an adverse credibility finding could co exist with a finding of good moral character that was the only issue and i would again point credibility determination is this good moral character vs adverse credibility issue it is just that issue and said that which is near has suggested no other ways that the average credibility determination might have any errors until it disposed of that issue see the other distinction between the issues that the court addressed and the issues that are now bringing is of course that the distinction made then between those at risk of ability and good moral character this is a very theoretical legal distinction that the attorneys were making now they are really getting into the details of how the the hearing was conducted the questions that the immigration judge allegedly should have a should not do that two weeks to continue and second about if they still needed an opportunity to present evidence on this issue there is always the ineffectiveness distance of counsel claim which is the logical place to put the blame if you to the corps and taking on the project and we appreciate as i said in the argument my foes counsel the matter just argued will be submitted