the find there respond and note as a sort of counsel i'll be asking your your friend what the government's position is as to what the bail receipt actually says and i'm sure the government has a position on that but let's assume the government concedes that the bail receipt actually says exactly what your cough and read into the record what about the other findings  on credibility by the i j a on and the b i including that your client told the asylum officer that it was one bible and in her testimony she claimed it was many many more bibles that were  but but but but counsel on the the issue i'm having here is that at least according to the asylum officers notes he did say how many bibles when your client said one there was something like are you sure it was just one and supposedly your client said yes so even if it wasn't a professional interpreter why is the immigration judge not entitled so f just believe your client that it was just a mere translation error why is the immigration judge required to accept your client's explanation that she said something different to the asylum officer  before us not the immigration decision and the more took a look at this and decided st is too late to try and have this receipt or whatever it was brought before us had has to be done before and so and then said even even if that were not so we agree with the immigration judge and then in taking a look at all the things that the immigration judge found which were contrary and relied upon them into german credibility as with the board decided so why and why is the board wrong why can we say that that in the circumstance we have here based on how did you get the stuff to the united states you must have plans in your plans your study overseas you and your marriage overseas and then two years later they  council i'd like to hear what is the united states's position as to whether or or not the translation proffered by intuition or at the hearing and before the i a is or isn't a correct translation of the boy did not make that decision i'm not i don't think i'm not asking what the board's position is what the board set is very clear i'm asking for what the united states his position is now as to whether what petition counsel i heard what the judge i've read what the judge said but my question is so the government has never brasi it in in the years since then and notwithstanding the issues here said go outside the record that still isn't my question so is your answer to my question the government did not go off to determine what the right translation is it's not a question of whether the government had to or didn't have express the view that even if you're correct as a matter of law i agree with what the petitioner said in her brief that finding the truth is the common goal by everyone in the courtroom in an asylum merits hearing  and it's my belief that the petitioners translation is correct and that that was a fundamental now with that did in fact be to a water th proceed  i think it's unfortunate from my perspective that the government didn't seek to make that determination even if there is a way to up all the p r exclusive of that but please continue with your argument  decided not to even address it and went on and on a lie the other for reasons that the agency gave for the average for the building finding these inconsistencies regarding the number of bibles directly relates to the