it's almost unclear exactly the extent of the board's decision however they do know primarily that they are affirming it based on credibility and they are also imposing a one year bar to the responde well i believe we can under this court's precedent in ramadan i believe that it's basically a legal issue what's interesting about this case and what's different than ramadan and i believe it's more of an issue of first impression in the circuit is that the underlying determination is based on the credibility finding which i would submit is flawed and putting that aside the issue is very much a legal issue the petitioner entered and at least his date of entry is may tenth two thousand and two he filed for asylum on november twenty  thousand and two and that's seven months seven months is not a year that's a legal determination there's no discretion anywhere in there you count the days it's less than three hundred sixty five so the cut of the changes we were first on credibility then that really an issue of jurisdiction in in this case i know that it was raised i believe that if the court has further questions please indulge me and i will be happy to answer as far as i would like to move on to credibility as far as that i'm well the fake id card there is no determination that it's a fake id card or honor those documents were not part of the record the judge basically excluded them and left them for identification because the respondent or the petitioner had failed to indicated in the record that there was a photo he had already taken prior to leaving china that at the time his locale in china was renewing all of the identification cards and that his wife obtains the card for him and sent it to him in the time he was on he was under interrogation and during that interrogation they were asking him about the church leaders and what had transpired in what he knew about the church leader and when he failed to ask those questions that's how he was hit so the answer of of believe bears the most focus in the instagram under the first of all reading the transcript carefully the he was asked how many times did you report and he answered specifically i reported for about over ten times there's no concrete number given and he was asked again over ten times he says twelve thirteen times and then i think twelve or thirteen times he says well yes bin it's in it  them and then at that point he says anyways i reported every monday and i do not recall exactly how many times over time and sometimes i didn't report the testimonies consistent i believe morning i j is entering his average credibility determination if you almost takes out of context the testimony and starts at the end and goes to the beginning and shifts around the exact places where the testimony was given but the petition on the instant matter said that the way he got to the united states was through canada they went out the back door of the church and then they walked across some open source some open land somehow came through to some iron adding walk a little further a canvas some more  netting then stark hour and so on is there anything in the record about rolls of iron netting at the united states border with canada between british columbia and washington no there's nothing in the record one way or the other one way or the other it just the theory given the fact that it was issued after he got to the united states and his claim is that he would fear persecution in china is that's the spiritual evidence to support  the do we have jurisdiction to do that or do we if we're persuaded that the adverse credibility terminations correct does that mean then we conclude that the time for was it was to the determination of withholding of removal at minimum this court's precedent is i'm clear on this because i know we're we're putting the cart before the horse a little bit here but i think if we're making a determination of long whether the evidence is sufficient to determine it under two and point one three a based on credible testimony we have to get to the credibility determination before we reach the one year issue i would agree with the court that if they do find him not credible that there would be a possibility not to reach the average credibility or the one year issue because at that point there's not much substantiated i can submit that there is a substantial evidence supporting it's two quick points again i would really urge the court to focus again on the exact the the course of the testimony regarding the reporting times i don't see that there is substantial evidence here the judge made multiple mistakes on the record he said said that the petitioner have two daughters he said all sorts of all sorts of mistakes on the record and he's jumping around and to answer one of the point the government raised didn't his demeanor finding it wasn't t