errors although the government contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider these errors nothing could be farther from the truth under this court's precedents exhaustion requirement is satisfied where an alien specifies a challenge to a particular issue or claim presented by the immigration judge's decision now the issue presented in this case the primary issue which the government is now in its second twenty eight day letter arguing has been waived is whether mr fang challenge the immigration judges credibility decision in particular the finding that he is in fact a question the issue however would have been waived if mr fang had failed to raise the credibility issue with the board as the petitioner in zara versus is immediately distinguishable from this case where mr fang actually devoted more than fifteen pages of his brief to the board of immigration appeals to challenge the immigration judges erroneous credibility finding and we so looking first to mr fang's application for asylum the board's language shows that the board except in the store things testimony regarding the existence of changed circumstances which materially affected his application for asylum specifically the board concluded that mr frank did not file within a reasonable period of learning of those changed circumstances so the board clearly in this instance disregarded or or  m within four months of learning of the change circumstances which affected his eligibility a delay of less than four months was plainly reasonable given the circumstances specifically mr bangs grief over the death of his father his limited english skills and lack of a support network here in the united states his uncertainty about where and how to apply for protection and his initial desire to return to china for his father's funeral that desire was only abated after his wife urged him not to return under any circumstances because of the heightened danger that he would face after having fled while under government supervision accordingly we would urge the the court to reach the issue of whether the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and conclude that in light of all of the circumstances it was only three of those reasons specifically mr bangs inability to remember the name of the church he attended as a child his inability to recall the name of the pastor that he attended at a church dallas and the lack of documentation about i think in this case cultural sensitivity is particularly important mr frank testified that he had spent over forty years of his life doing home study with other christians so i tending a formal church with something a little bit unusual him now he specifically testified that he attended the church in dallas texas sometimes and he knew the name of the tracks in the intersection where it with located on the day of the hearing he couldn't remember the name of the pastor against him that he doesn't know the difference between the protestant bible and the christian bible doesn't mention that if we're talking about sustaining an edifice credibility and are we limited to th evidence they do not particularly the issue that your honor cited was whether or not mr franklin would address the difference between the catholic and the christian bible in point of fact he testified that he  problematic because he was only asked one question and in response to the question what is the specific difference he said quote how to say not at page one forty four of the record now to me that indicates that he was thinking about a response unfortunately the very next question he was asked was quote well what was it about the church in addition to the bible being different that kept you from feeling that this was a church that you could belong to now that question moved him away so listen carefully what the government says because we will give you a minute to respond thank you very much credibility fine on those grounds however there are several issues in this case that i think that go beyond just simply the credibility determination first there are two credibility finding first relates to see change conditions there is nothing in the board's decision that suggests that the board is overruling the the immigration judge is average credibility's determination as to change conditions and in fact be the adverse credibility determination underlying the changed circumstances finding that being the case their facts are disputing it has to change conditions because they're disputed but you're stating and if i did i wouldn't i would say i don't believe those are changed circumstances she simply says i don't believe you therefore i'm going to find no change circumstances so there's no determination by the some of those grounds are not good and the board simply says that we find no clear air points out to the grounds that aren't challenged and moves on i think it's so it's not clear that the board is actually saying we finally sufficient or and i think that it's best it's not clear what the what the the board basis is here it's not clear that they're saying we think these are good enough or that we think we're just not going to be the board certainly just as this court has waiver rules it's not required to consider you're out is there are just two points that the government