have the clock set to in minutes is i think the ita the immigration judge did actually make a credibility finding i think declined to address whether there was clear error in the immigration judges credibility finding what does that what does that do to the immigration judges credibility finding that mean that the credibility finding is still a factual part of the record or what does that mean  that i'm not going to decide i'm not going to address that adverse credibility finding whether that has here i'm going in that he assumed i think without deciding that the addition or was credible but then he decided that it's credible testimony does not meet the burden that the idea is not there and saying that credible testimony did not meet the burden and that the cooperating evidence didn't push it over the line either for us to reverse that we have to we have to see the record as a whole with the l a different finding that means do we have to address the adverse credibility and see if that was wong the question i've got is what do we do as a court with a when i j says although i find this person not credible but also gives an alternative ground and then a different ground essentially assuming i think that titian it was credible but not citing in order what what what how what do we need to do in order to overturn because if a cli we can't overturn the b i unless we unless there's clear unless the evidence of a hole in the record compels a different fine do we is the case is the adverse credibility binding still in the part of that record as a whole we we want it if we disagree and i agree with that but if we disagreed with with the with the district courts i'm not saying whether i do or don't that we disagree with the district court or i'm sorry that the basis for decision over to that requires us to only reverse if it's inconsistent if the ground is inconsistent with the record as a whole at the say i don't know if you're telling me the truth but i need some additional corroborating evidence before i include that you are and if you don't provide that evidence then i can't credit your testimony if that's different from saying you're just outright lying to i think just by being i've tracked and worked at which i judge by this that what i was curious about it but if we were wanting to if we were in a position to want to overturn the b i a s decision on the basis of his decision what would we have to do and i think maybe we ought to say that we would have to look at all of the evidence as a whole in the record and see if it compels a different result part of the evidence in the record would be the b i adverse credibility bias i think we maybe have to read the i j a adverse credibility finding i think we have to reach that if we wanted to overturn the b i you're i don't think we could just assume that the idea is credible because that's part of the record that's what i'm trying to figure out whether it's it would what i'm talking about doesn't matter if you if we agree with the b i s basis of the decision but with this alternative thing in the record i'm trying to figure out if we would have to reach that if we want to this degree you continue i know you're was well he's he's got a certain amount of let's assume credible that we're not going to side let's assume credible testimony but if not enough self let's get some more cooperate on the evidence but that's not enough either you add in together it's still not enough  system but if we want to go a rule that i don't think we could do that unless we pass through a question of whether or not he's actually not credible because that's another thing in the records i think we'd have to go further and actually find clear error in the eye jay's decision that he's not credible we would just be able to say well we don't agree with the b i a on this other ground we'd actually have not credible if you're going to be consistent with the statute that says all and my my my my sense of that case was that they just went the court just went through the fisher's testimony and it's and you know said that it was improper for the for evidence that's the end of the matter and if we think that if we think that the b a could only reach one conclusion about the crop rating evidence and and it's the opposite conclusion not reached we w further proceedings right now we're pushing back on you or miss carter i'm not sure that's true because i think what would happen is if we receive conclusion that cooperating evidence doesn't actually push you across or does actually push you cross the line assuming he's credible before we could remain and we would actually because in the factual record is this item being that he's not credible we would actually have to go further and say not only does supply bring evidence not push you cross the line assuming he's credible but we would have to actually find if there was clear error in the i j's this edition finding that he wasn't credible if we didn't find that we would we would have we would be bound by the actual finding unless we can find