number of discrepancies both within mr khan's testimony and between mr contest money and the supporting documents that he submitted but in my review of the record i have a hard time finding that the immigration judge actually confronted mr khan with any of these perceived discrepancies first the immigration judge suggested that you know on the one hand supposedly mr contest by that he was one of the first forty or so people to join this party that he belonged to and i j found that inconsistent with the notion that the party was able to quote organize a rally with thousands of people and have the sort of high profile described described in the report documents in the file in one thousand a five couple things bother me about the failure to confront him on this first to the report documents that supposed to describe his party as having a high profile they don't exist when there are only three or four documents in the entire record that even referenced this party none of them talk about them having our high profile their interviews with the leaders of the party nothing more than that right now he said he was very chummy with the chairman of the board or whatever it was and it was it was he portrayed himself as being a very big shake remover and in the party i don't agree with that but that's a separate point the issue here is that the immigration duties of the chairman stayed in his house which is personal friends right whatever exactly but the point here is that the immigration judge is saying that that he had a high profile in this first issue but whether resit the party itself had a high profile that's not is that on the fifth of january one thousand nine hundred five in mere poor there was a big rally in which the leaders and the party members of the u k p n p were present i was present at the rally he never suggested that the party organize thousand ninety five was organized by the party that he belonged to and in fact if you look at the documentation in the record this is the party it seems to me is very small that's my take on this case the canadian refugee board report that's in the record  and i think that's somewhere around page three sixty one it's ascribed to various parties it doesn't even mention this party there's no dispute that the party exists because we have interviews with the leader and you know what not but it's not a huge party it doesn't seem to be a huge party but there are documents on the record t talk about people being arrested at these opposition rallies but what these documents suggest is that these opposition rallies are organized by an alliance of parties this is set forth in the country report on page one seventy it says throughout the years the government occasionally interfered with opposition rallies which were not a thing about you know what you're talking to just about you know him claiming to be a big wig in the party i just i don't see that in the record what he said repeatedly is that he was a senior member of the party but he never never he claim to have an important member but that he said i'm close to the chairman and i have some important job to do in the party but also didn't mention anything about the incidence of torture right in the way he was supposed to inform right party of his mistreatment right  then i would go back to the same case as we cited our briefer three that's a case that concerned doctor's letter that didn't include all kinds of what could be significant details about the case but it seems to me that you know you can't really draw such an adverse way i don't and i don't i agree with you that there's a lot here that i don't swings both ways but this is such a way that no reasonable i j could have you talk about the letter stated that secret agents agencies register  review i agree that generally that's the standard review but as a threshold matter to uphold an adverse credibility finding you have to find an immigration judge gave a specific and cogent reason here and i'm suggesting that the lack of detail in these letters is need is not a physical evidence that evidence such as was presented saying he presented no physical evidence no that when it was an issue and saying was there was a letter from a doctor who was corroborating the fact that the guy received medical treatment and there were significant details that were absent from the letter and this court said emphasize that the letter wasn't in any way inconsistent with his testimony in that the omission of such details in another cells would not be a sufficient basis that has a specific and cogent reason to question the guy's credibility and at that point i think that case is controlling and i think you are talking about whether cases were registered against him at that point again the i g never confronted mr can this point and that's troubling for a  couple reasons you know first obviously that the transcript is entirely unclear about what he said about whether cases have been filed against him it's there are two questions asked in both them in the transcript or in audible or indiscernible but we know he answered it but the point is that if you look at his his application the application that he filed for eleven this is the only other place on the record where the issue comes up and he says that although there were no charges filed against me while i was there since i've departed the country i've spoken with my wife i know that they're visiting my home and i've come to learn that charges have been filed against me that's the only other thing and that's entirely the in the record about this and that's entirely consistent with  of money the only suppose that inconsistency on this point are the two questions that the transcript reveals are completely answers of which you're completely inaudible now i only have a minute forty seconds left if there are no further questions i'd like to reserve the balance of that you eligibility for really helpful if we were to find counter to your argument that the reasons given were incorrect or not specific or that's the petitioner was not given a adequate opportunity to explain perceived instance system sees why wouldn't we return this case on an open record for further proceedings in other words we have a third choice you're suggesting that our choices are he's either believed or disbelieved here in the story but isn't there a third option that if the reasons given by the i g are insufficient particularly where there's been an absence of opportunity to explain that there can be a remand for those explanations and for further proceedings oh yes there can be a i've under ventura and under  thomas they're absolutely candy every minute in fact and under subtle l r k our court has said that was i know you would have to because there's no alternative finding here other than credibility so if in fact you don't agree with that with that money if you find that this record come pelf a contr you know i think that's that's that's where i'm falling short of that if we if we were to conclude that the reasons given by the i j a were insufficient yes no you would have to have to find it best yes regardless of it and on remand presumably there could be another adverse credibility finding after giving him an opportunity to explain and so forth and so on so that's why that's the distinction i guess i'm asking you to  about whether whether there's something other than we are compelled to find him credible if we simply find that the i g messed up there to use the vernacular we don't have to find him credible if we send it back and i think yes absolutely and i see what you're saying your honor yes you would have to send it back in that case as well but here you have an i j that denied this case found adverse credibility on five different grounds and they are sob the way that i broke it down there are subsections to each one of those to each of those grounds as well so you have it's a kind of a hard row to hoe for you to find that every single one of  refer to the torture that he received yeah well that it doesn't it's not consistent with his own characterization of his role in the party what he did for the party what his relationship was to the leaders of this party it's not the kind of letter that that you would get from for someone who was in fact so involved and was tortured that's it said just pure speculation there's nothing that the letter says that is contradictory to what he said it doesn't say for example he was the secretary treasurer whereas he testified he was never secretary treasurer he would never do that job he was vice president i mean there's not a conflict suggest that we have a poor letter writer on the other end of this process but it's hard to find that it actually contradicts things that he said i get it does helping very much doesn't help it affirmative well respectfully it does contradict this issue about complaint being registered against him he testified oh no there were no complaints registered against me but the the party letter says that there were so that in fact is an actual inconsistency between his testimony and letter and then in addition you have other where is the testimony that supposed in your view that police restraint cases against him before he fled the country that testimony is found i have that at page seventy two of the record  be an error but we wouldn't have any way to review it how can we possibly review this well i mean again the immigration judge did find did state that and if you look at the way that they're following lee very carefully questioning follow up question they were they were questioning him about that to make sure that that was specified but again even if you don't go with that inconsistency even if you find that there is a problem with that there are other bases for the adverse credibility finding  so again even if that is a problem for you that still doesn't show that this record compels a contrary conclusion for example if you look at the letter from the medical center spell which is supposed to be corroborating his injury the letter doesn't say anything other then he was treated as a case of torture well again this is similar to the question the judge by the asked you earlier it's generic it's general in the some say what specifically was wrong but it's not inconsistent it's not inconsistent but it doesn't help him and he's got the burden of proof that the whole different question from whether he believe what he's saying because he's been crossed up by the evidence he's brought up that's a very very different finding but it's still it's still respectfully in our view that's still his burden of proof i mean the first thing threshold if you're getting kind of wan thing that he's got to meet is he's got to be credible he's got to give us a story that we believe and it's got of the if there's any quiet inconsistency or any question with his testimony it's got to be backed up he's got to show us that first to meet his burden of proof and again in this in this court it's a very high standard he's got to show that this record compels reversal and in our view i have and that's that's i think where we're crosswise i think what he has to show is that each reason given by the immigration judge was defective was legally defective that's all he has to show at this point right but and and perhaps that would then  compelling issue that would be the compelling that would compel you i suppose to to send it back but again here he hasn't done he testified that this party was openly operating in his region senior party members are free to engage in political activities the secretary general of this party gave him a letter that person is obviously not being detained or otherwise tortured or jailed he couldn't explain why he rather than any of these other people would be singled out for persecution other than this h here you have the board talking about the asylum standard and saying he didn't meet the assignment kandor so he's actually had i'm afraid i'm afraid bill your filing within one year is not the government's position that there's no jurisdiction over this welp u after which i did twenty a j about two weeks ago this court has found jurisdiction in similar cases so i don't think that we can really come to you in this case and say that you don't have jurisdiction over the earlier briefing west before that case for about three years ago yeah so you were not i don't believe the question was intended to fault the government for having taken that position before we ever decided but i don't know i know i know i just want to i know i understand your question your honor and no i don't think we can say that you don't have jurisdiction what i can say that i don't think you need to reach the issue because if you look at the board's decision the board talks about i would make sure that you think you think that that the question of whether he failed we if we rule against you concerning the credibility do you say that you don't want us to consider the cellular phone since you would go back anyway your honor i don't think that you would need that you would need that you now have jurisdiction over the merits of that determination ok but it's a question now is of the government's position that he failed to timely file an application for asylum and on that ground alone we should deny his  failure to file a timely application for asylum is is independent grounds for denying the petition here no no it is an independent graphic design yes but you do have jurisdiction at this point post having cases like that ok thank you possibly be an independent ground to deny the petition because the one year rule only goes to asylum credibility goes to withholding of removal and kat and that's the way the immigration judge said his decision up so even if you were to agree with the government on th asylum claim you still have to consider the credibility of the case if we win and credibility the case has to go back so the judge can reconsider his rulings on withholding of removal ok go ahead in to tell me why and why you think that that i got to be excused well for starters it seems to he went to get a labor certificate or whatever work to work he never spoke to anyone the record is barren of him ever speaking to anyone about asylum right within the one year period he only want to get a labor or a certificate and we don't  not filed a timely file an application then what we do well you know if you were to agree with the government on that point i'd still like to answer that question i'm out of time here but you can answer it if you were to agree with the government on that point in the case still has to go back for the immigration judge or the board to reconsider the issue of credibility and i agree with your point your honor that i don't think you can reverse here going back to your question just going i mean it seems to me that to reverse the evidence has to be so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could disagree with it but  thousand he retained this lawyer no question he got in effect of the count right after the labor well and he retained this lawyer march thirteenth within the year march thirteenth of the following year the retainer agreement that set forth on page four seventeen it says that he's retaining him to obtain a green card through labor cert if he's obtaining a green card that obviously mitigates any need to apply for asylum for the for the average joe sure and eight and a diligent lawyer  having a someone from pakistan might have made further inquiries but we have absolutely no evidence that he went in there to find out how he could stay in the united states i don't think you need that evidence because if there's if the lawyer is telling him that you're going to get a green card you're going to get a green card through this process which is what he's represented here in his testimony and if that testimony is credible you obviously need credit but on page one sixteen one seventeen he says nothing to prevent him from getting alternatively there isn't but on the other hand we believe that the board should consider whether there's there's an extraordinary circumstance if a lawyer is telling you you're going to get a green card through this process and that's what was represented to him on pages one sixteen one seven he makes that clear if a lawyer is telling th person you're going to get a green card through this process why would he filed for asylum the green card if you got the green card what kind of status of the have you not it's better than a file with asylum you get asylum and then one year after they granted asylum if you've been physically present for a year then you can apply for your green card what this lawyer was representing to him is you don't have to go through the asylum process because we're going to have you you're going to skip that whole thing you're going to get the green card that you would have to wait a year after having been granted asylum for even to even apply for so in that circumstance why would you apply for asylum it seems to me that that if there was ineffective assistance of counsel here that is an extraordinary circumstance that certainly relates to the failure to file but my problem with this is that neither the immigration judge nor the board of immigration appeals considered this question in the context of an i c claim they didn't you know it's a two part question first was there ineffective assistance of counsel secondly was there prejudice they never really considered this issue about prejudice the standard for prejudice in a case like this we don't know what it is that point we'll be back here ok thank you very much we used a lot of both of your time and we appreciate very much the answers and the arguments or both counsel i've been very helpful in this