was completely credible and very consistent regarding his own personal claims on the board in fact does not identify a single discrepancy was is in the sense that he did testify pilot and direct correctly on that he did well i did like it maybe this is where you're going with it but what it did seem like he was a little sparse on details can you explain why that have been and he it was sparse and detail and normally that would be a completely understandable point on the part of the board however he was not in china when his father was detained it was not part of his original asylum application it was something that his mother told him happened subsequently after he was already in the united states and not only that but he testified in court that the mother would not tell him what happened that he was eighteen years old at the time and the mother did not want to worry him and so she wouldn't elaborate so the judge determined this is not plausible and i would hope that the panel find father we don't know why the father didn't provide him information again it was a young it's issue there who went along with what his parents told i right that you're arguing that to the extent that  relied on the lack of detail in the mother's letter or the fact that the father didn't write a letter that there needed to be better now if those gaps correct your honor he did provide evidence then the judge finds well the letter is insufficient and i would argue since he was very credible about his own harm then the judge at this point should have said ok well i still need additional evidence but i think i don't take the position was that the mother was not going to submit additional evidence so even if there had been you know the notice that you're requesting i thought the i think your client's position was look this transcript where i directly asked the petitioner if letter from the father is requested could he write it and he said i think so so i think it was perfectly to provide additional evidence and he did not necessarily from the mother but he he he believed his father would write a letter for iraq and the mother for all we know is a simple person and the judge expects her to write this examined but at the same time they penalize the petitioner by saying you didn't submit the letter from your father well again he would not be there to be cross examined be there so why are they relying on the absence of this letter when are they very same reasons they don't want to give full credit to the mother's letter but i think you have a pretty good argument here and the question is what does our standard of review it seems to come up in a lot of these cases where i mean you make a very letter submitted you know maybe i'll just discount that as well but isn't that why we have an appellate court should just be deferring in a situation like this to to that i guess we're  completely agree and most of the cases i believe submit for that very reason is that the panel normally and understandably is differential to the board and the judge because they were there however i was the one that handled this case from the start and i will tell the court that if there were anything within his own claim that the board could hang something on then i would possibly that there is a lack of rubber ration of the testimony that itself i am arguing discreditable the length of details that finding does not have is not supported by substantial evidence immigration judge at that as a guide to the board so is your position we can go back to in this case and look at the immigration judges rationale to the extent that it goes beyond the b i a application to call it but i don't think that that part of the adverse credibility determination before the court but as true as to the adverse credibility determination by the board regarding that when the board rely on think man by the immigration judge may look at the immigration judges and well yeah i mean that that's part of the problem i have with this case i think and  maybe i'm maybe i'm just not seeing it right but it seems like i j gave a couple of different reasons and then the b i a only relied on one of those reasons and i'm not sure that i mean doesn't that sort of suggest form grounds for an adequate ability to term well i agree with them but the question is are we reviewing only what the b i a c said the single reason there and if we don't agree with that that's the end of our inquiry or can we go back  determination they all happen to relate to the petitioners repeated inability to provide any details or corroboration about what allegedly happened to his father but as to those three grounds the lack of about the nd reason being the timeline seems like you agree that we can't look at the timeline in my right eye i would agree that that wasn't part of the board's analysis and so therefore i  way i read the board decision is that it didn't say anything about it and therefore it wasn't part of the decision on our view before this court but no details about the i did give because i don't so how is that a valid basis for finding him not credible yes your honor he testified that his mother was reluctant to give him additional details because he she didn't want to upset him and then he stated that it was simply his personality to accept what he's told but the agency reasonably concluded that was unpersuasive because that's not a sufficient excuse for failing to me a statutory testimony that's credible persuasive session an adverse credibility determination may depend on a lack of corroboration and that's because the rehnquist testimony itself was found to not be credible totally apart from the corroboration so i actually don't think it principle i would respectfully disagree i think it stands for the principle that a lack of proper action main form part of the basis of an adverse credibility determination and that's because the statute provide separate subsection and no i didn't mean to say otherwise but if you're going to rely on alaska for operations then you need to give notice and an opportunity to fill the gap and i don't really think that notice here was ad i think doesn't it yes if a score moves beyond the st round in his testimony that he couldn't provide any detail which this court has repeatedly stated is a valid basis for an adverse his claim so it was his statue tory burden to prove all aspects of his claim including a fear of future persecution to which the treatment of his father was directly pertinent and moreover he guess the government's point is i'm listening to it seems to be that notice wasn't really noted to the extent notice was required here it was given up front and the petitioner should have recognized that because it was part of his claim in ch court stated in a meeting poses a bias toward corroboration and furthermore in this specific case the patient was advised to provide anything that supported what happened and the petitioners counsel specifically acknowledged quote corroborative evidence that was required and provide an opportunity for playing why he can't reasonably obtain then we unfair and plausible to require such from the immigration judge whereas the specific when it's the petitioners burden to submit any documents that would support his claim and he himself proffered as part of his claim what happened to can tell your honor and i believe that because at least the board specifically cited you'll be waiting recession and that's the framework under which the case proceeded and and that was the correct framework given that this is an adverse credibility determination and this court's decision and yelling is dispositive or the applicable precedent for the situation but i take it that that the b i never said here's why we're not going to go down the bottom right pa there was no discussion of the case whatsoever i don't see any citation appealing and the board's decision but again it's because the board paraclete concluded the fat framework was not the what he knows he in fact one could argue that he's not embellishing just testimony by simply making enough details about his father's testimony let me ask you this right now it was  sparse it doesn't it just doesn't support its side and claim that would have been ok i take it it's the fact that they relied upon to add their some credibility determination that makes this difficult is that right  if they found that the past persecution didn't rise to the level of arm well yeah i mean part of the concern i have with the notice argument and why i find it difficult is the your client's duty was to show that he you know actually feared persecution and part of that was because it was a father's experience maybe a large part of that and knowing that usually you have to come in with of the facts before you you know to do to prove your point and so there's a certain aspect of this that you know you're quite used to bring enough evidence to bear to support it he just relied on his own testimony  go ahead and a letter from the mom and he submitted my medical records well ok that's a separate point i'm just talking about as to the father's imprisonment so maybe there was enough else in the record right requirements to report and they would not allowed to practice his religion and the judge in fact found him credible on that aspect and said i do consider that he's a christian and united states and the other witness t yes you know and i did look up jali wanky that cases egregious and had a number of discrepancies much much worse factually in our case and finally we would argue that we just submit  reasonably available documents he did submit medical records church evidence letter from his mother and one could argue that it would have been duplicative to submit a letter from his father which goes to the point that there should have been notice to judge