i'm robert job on appearing today i may have the petitioner it seems to me that this court's review of the immigration judges negative credibility finding in this case is complicated by three factors first the immigration just in this case was bullying and intimidating inappropriate through much of the hearing i think that affected the ultimate credibility determination second the immigration judge mr shaaban scrub rating witness and even the translator was poking and somewhat broken english which makes the transcript very difficult to understand in large part and third this particular transcript is rife with this transcriptions or critical passages that are just take those two things which appear to be undisputed why couldn't a rational trier of fact look at those two items and come to the conclusion that the story about believe on the cover sheet it asked for religion and there when he arrived here in the united states two weeks after he arrived he found that patient and i met foreman says muslim but if you go into the farm where there it begins to actually ask you questions about your it's much and the other thing about this particular point is that he corrected the application before he was sworn to a close let's discount that let's take your point for purposes of argument as given why couldn't a rational trier of fact look at this witness which the petitioner called right instructor yes who testified under oath that your client did not reveal the jordanian conversion to christianity during their discussions why couldn't a rational trier of fact say the reason he didn't tell him is  that we don't know why he didn't tell him that you're on it there's no indication that he was ever asked by the witness well wait a minute that's that's sort of shaving a little bit because the witness specifically that he didn't know anything about the bible the way he did know jesus christ was particularly why he was called god he didn't know any of the basics of christianity and his whole point in this is his whole point i'm living in a muslim society basically non muslim and by conversion it's serious it's been acceptable it will tear me away from  it's drastic it's all kinds of terrible things and yet i converted in the no one thing about christianity that's a little hard to swallow was not i disagree with some of the characterization i need to go to the transcript if i can excuse me i need to refer to the transcript again the immigration judge found that he was not forthcoming in describing his experience to christianity i simply think that's wrong in large part first this begins on page ninety four of the transcript and again we're dealing with passages that are almost denominations but he doesn't indiscernible when i started studying the bible he said this this one is different than other denominations that i knew for so he continued in that passage makes clear insofar as  government and his response was yeah his questions were fundamental but there's nothing to suggest that you have or i'm sorry i'm sorry who is the witness the witness is somebody from his bible c is gone and all that thing that he knew about christianity from point of view of the muslim so i tried to explain it to him from the bible so the first few times you met him it was very fundamental questions like who was jesus and who was god yeah very fundamental that has except your spin on that argument but let me just run through the other passages in the transcript that i think are relevant on this point continues on page ninety seven something again the immigration judge simply ignored  he was asked the witness was asked from the trial attorney or the judge so he just didn't know anything about christianity at this point and the answer is this is on page ninety seven line five when he told me that he knows something about christianity and he loves to be any wants to be a christian he wants to study the bible and then on page eighty nine we get into the issue of the conversion you know the immigration judge faulting him for not telling  told you anything of what happened to him while he was in jordan abjection the answer yeah he tried to tell me objection what's the objection it's not relevant it would be double hearsay at this point so the issue summary i think the only the only real question that we have here him quoted as saying is who why do you say that jesus is the son of god this other stuff is the witness sort of paraphrasing what he instructed mr  and he directly informed mr shot mister gore of his desire to to practice for staying out of the i want to focus on some of the other issues raised by the immigration judge here i want to talk about for example the date petitioners version of what had transpired but actually it's the government's position that the immigration judge was looking for background information that the attorney had not  christian there was no background information and it was clear from a review of the records that the immigration judge was at least background information with respect to the petition where the petitioner was born when he came to the united states his education his asking him specific questions about background information and he wasn't denying him a full and complete opportunity to present his case and then after four questions well he did jump in and and but but had not had an opportunity to present some of his questions and what happened was i noted that from the transcript that whoever represented the government at the hearing should be commended for having the courage to do that the right thing to do judge did your honor and came back in granted the petitioners counsel's request to ask questions and what's interesting from now that is out of at that point where you where you say well i'm going to rule against you the go ahead and make your record  documents qualify him for voluntary departure she didn't ask him any questions that went to the adverse credibility issue so the district council had an idea that this was going to be an adverse credibility finding i mean the ins attorney said you credibility and in fact just asked him some routine questions and then interestingly the immigration judge didn't render an oral decision at that time the hearing was held in march and the immigration judge didn't issue a decision  ability to craft it in the way that you choose to craft and you rise or fall on it but when a judge or any integration judge takes over the hearing and it becomes a an interference with the way you want to present your case there's no requirement know when he had well i guess they actually did ask when he converted to christianity but just some basic background information and hasn't shown that there was some harm by the immigration judge doing  him to show that he was credible when in fact the record shows he was not credible regardless of how the truth comes out do you have any way of getting feedback to these people like the of getting back to that organization and saying well look you've got to shape these people up because we're going to start losing all of our appeals and you know and anyway it's not fair to honor i don't actually know the answer to your question but i will certainly raise that with the director from our office about the court's concern and particularly with respect to this immigration judge and you because i think sometimes you say well as the i j a is obligation to make sure the records develop properly so we understand that but their ways of doing it in their ways you shouldn't do and thank you your honor ok thanks for your argument