petition argues that in the present case the finding of the lower courts and determining that dismissed claims for a person asylum should be not and should be denied it is improper for the following reasons now to risk credibility finding passports in the course of conducting these sorts of proceedings why is that an improper inference to draw from an item of evidence that is proffered as authentic when a judge questions english moreover in the gratian just fail to consider this would be a document that would be prepared presumably find a bureaucrat or an official of the indian government as  common and a common place matter that there are different phonetic spelling something name in english and there's also no saying in english but i'm asking presumably the official in india who prepared the document if it is in fact jan you would have been familiar with the languages of that country so why i'm a little confused why you're drawing the distinction in english been on the dancefloor but presumably an immigration judge with some experience has probably his or her share of faults passports so again my question is why shouldn't we  of evidence which the petitioner offer and that was the document which purports to be a genuine passport issued by the indian government it's run and and as i understand it the fact finder looked at that document and had a serious question as to its authenticity because of the manner in which it was physically arranged and why is that an improper basis for an immigration judge to question on the record that he has encountered such cases before or that he's any sort of authority on indian passports and therefore i believe that in light of the fact that there are no material consistencies if history is testimony passport being offered to show i guess the passport i suppose that is offered to show that she is who she is and yet there are other there and yet the immigration judge did not and furthermore as far as the passport is concerned some writing so we don't have a passport here the real question is she left india why didn't she use the passport she had there's nothing to indicate that she was being or she fled and in fact her testimony is that she used the passport somebody else yes your honor and she didn't so sorry and i was so ready for you i got you if you know i think i can be a pain and i apologize but i love because it's critical to me if you say that i told a lie i'd like to see where she says i told a l started firing students here she is indicating that militants shot first it doesn't really matter you know because there's nothing wrong with her father shooting at people who are like it's happened what i meant i read all this and i was are familiar with you said into this country and thereafter in deportation are seeking asylum they lied to get into the country they all did but she had already been was in asylum proceedings in canada as you know that  interview process and she said i didn't even look at the papers i didn't know what i was feeling out ok if you want to that is not credible first of all but second of all that's not i don't use that i did not look at the papers that she doesn't know what was in them that's a different question which is you know with no documentation i find that extraordinary part of the canadian authorities but anyway they released her she said she was going to go to a sikh temple and stay there and instead she hooked up with her smuggler spent the night with the family and then for everyone who comes to the united states and sees the cylon both things are happening or she could have done it in canada because the product into new although she was no longer fleeing persecution she gets to the border and she's with another family and there she is holding it as a weather work as a dummy i know the border very well what is going thing is that when she comes in she knew the name on the false passport she used to get into canada or at least to get out of india she is going to look at that passport because  you believe you believe that part of the story i'm not an arm asking something different you argue that she should have resettled safely elsewhere in india and that is are grounds for for denying she during her detention she was brutally raped this testimony was not questioned by the immigration judge instead he started to speculate that that because she did not know that her father's addition to keys to some vehicle for some money when the it's implied from our testimony that when she went there when her father went into his bedroom to get the money she heard a gunshot from within the bathroom there is no evidence that anybody else was in the bathroom with her father and therefore it is going to go as implied that she was the one who committed the first shots when there was no follow up questions at that point during a direct testimony on cro