her hostile attitude towards both the petitioner it would appear from the record and from to her tourney at one point during the presentation of one of her witnesses counsel for the service held that witness  right at that he feels about the second witness the aunt of the petitioner was put on to the stand and gave testimony which the i j a seem to find not supportive or not credible given the circumstances at that time it's highly unlikely that the witness would have given any more than for fun through testimony unlike other times when something is very easy or is the bombing of  silently she was able to testify you know when i had an interview they gave me a visa at the point the transcript reading of the transcript overt hostility i believe at that point the witness was intimidated and  any other situation this would be a substantive due process matter but here it becomes an issue of the credibility of a witness which the judge dismissed given the context given the given the  time frame of what was happening were less than an hour before her brother was taken off and put into detention on a belief where again his status was challenge before he even had an opportunity to testify why time i believe that based on the record the transcript or the record that the witness was frightened and intimidated and for whatever reason that counsel faile little differently if that's true she's represented by a lawyer who then should have asked the question if the lawyer knew something and the sighted he should not ask that question how can we then tip over the i j a because it's different it's the glasses cleaned up the witness the aunt who is the sister of the petitioner's mother didn't testify directly to to quote the bombing she testified to other other matters concerning the as to the actions of the other party officials torture torture mother whether whether the her aunt as a witness could have testified and given additional supplemental testimony as to their past to was scheduled to testify prior to the answer and before you could testify he was arrested and detained based on those services believed that he was here without status when in fact he was an asylum at that other witness has already been has been detained and won't be testifying in a merely proceeding to the testimony of the aunt but it's not made on the record as to the whole discussion as to why this witness was not allowed to testify was not asked was that was there an adequate opportunity for her to volunteer that form there was that it actually didn't come necessarily from the attorney it actually came from the immigration judge at page one forty four of the record the immigration judge asked the witness did your sister say anything else about the situation there in the village that was remarkable or stuck in your memory or answer so that she will send my niece over to me to take care of that there were some problems at home so she had the opportunity to to discuss or to tell the court that about this bombing and she didn't  and the i j a drive has a lot of inferences from that that seems to be the thing that concerns the i j a there's nothing inconsistent between me and testimony in the petitioner's testimony right there is not that is correct but all the problem is not that the end is inconsistent with the petitioner it's just dance testimony doesn't corroborate the petitioner on this one issue of the bombing right if that's correct your honor and from that the i j a certain inference was crowd we have we have a petitioner who has some evidence  produced credible corroborative evidence to the letter etc on her own testimony then the i j a in fact in this case developed an adverse credibility finding because it was not further support from the  i understand the argument the briefs but if you can help me with this i would be appreciative of why the r j didn't go in the wrong direction in violation to do as a law by basing his credibility story has cooperated and some of it is not it's not it's not it can't be severed it's a matter of the whole package so to speak by way of example to illustrate this taking it out of an immigration cont and putting it in a criminal context let's say defendant is accused of murder and the indictment charges that the murder was committed on on sunday and the defendant comes forward and says i have an alibi i have an alibi witness who's who  my alibi is that i was with witness anyway on sunday when the murder occurred and i was with that witness in church all day and he produces the witness and the witness says i was with the defendant all day long on sunday the day of the murder and we were at a bar having a drink all day well part of the witnesses test or part of the alibi is corroborated by that witness but the fact say things and do things isn't just a matter of credibility we've we've said on here that if it's very specifically that yes the testimony of the petition has its own credibility and you can't make an adverse credibility finding because of the failure of another witness to provide that you see going to analogy of the crime situation where you have a district judge that we apparently trust is not going to help you much because the i j a is required to do certain things we say you can't do it that's the case to say so i don't think you can do analogies you've got to tell us why these two cases do not hold that the judge did the wrong thing and why we don't have to send it back to redo the credibility determination that's the issue well because i think to answer your question your honor in steps she produced a witness who didn't testify about an of the finding by the immigration judge that it's to the aunt testified that the that the mother was having some problems with respect to  the secretary of the communist party in china and yes the aunt did say yes she was having some problems and and to that part yes there she is consistent with testimony but there's a huge gap that i think that can't really be severed out where were the aunt had an opportunity to discuss the bombing didn't discuss the bombing and it's and based on that there was an adverse credibility finding so she had to produce additional evidence to support her claim and she hadn't done that  so i thought that i'm answering the the court's question i'm not sure that i have you i would also like to address a couple of other things that opposing counsel has raised for the first  time before this court she addresses the hostility of counsel for the ins and i would submit to the court that that has absolutely been waived it wasn't raised in the opening brief and this court case law holds that that issue would be waived and i'm