but in direct examination he mentioned both of those situations so all the judge is you know reasonably small eighteen months before she heard the direct examination eighteen months later she  judge makes a big deal about this but if you were shot at three times and in one incident companion was wounded in another incident a companion was killed don't you think that it's reasonable to expect that one seeking reasonably concluded based on substantial evidence in the record mr taft was not a credible witness and the evidence does not compel a contrary finding the immigration judge offered specific reasons for finding mr tapp not credible those reasons go to the very heart of mr taps asylum claim there were no translation problems relating to the in consistencies and mr the documents the immigration found were not translated moreover he gave counsel for mr tappan opportunity to explain why they had not been authenticated or translated and no explanation was offered no explanation was offered in the brief and no explanation has been offered this morning counsel would you agree that the accounts given by mr tatham regarding the land rover incident were consistent and corroborate direct the court's attention to ten pages in this record if you read nothing else but these ten pages they need to speak with with memorable clarity to the single issue that is before the court those ten pages in the record are two two hundred one to two hundred eleven this is the beginning of the cross examination of mr taft the issues been raised this morning whether mr tapp had assistance of counsel with respect to is the immigration judge had him sign it again the beginning of the hearing after having read it and after swearing everything was true these ten pages deal with the beginning of the cross examination mr taft has at this point had seven years to get his story straight with assistance of counsel so far just after these this point with cross examination begins there has been one shooting described one shooting in the asylum application one shooting a drive by shooting by unknown persons in which mr tapp was not injured but his passenger was in the direct examination then comes the revelation in these ten pages after the lengthy direct examination by his own counsel the ins counsel asked mr tapper the details about this single shooting suddenly and for the very first time mr tapp adds to the basis of his asylum claim a virtual cornucopia of violence and shootings he adds two more shootings and eight killing that have never before been referred to the testimony since both the immigration judge and the ins counsel back to their notes of the previous hearing they do then confirm on the record that this is the very first mention of the two new shootings and during this consultation mr tapper remained silent i mr taps counsel remain silent when mr taft is then offered an opportunity your honor you had you would ask the question about his i being offered an opportunity to explain he's offered  opportunity to explain the significant discrepancy in these ten pages between the testimony he has just given and his prior testimony in his asylum application and in his direct testimony mr taft answer regarding why he has not previously mentioned the other two shootings and the killing is and i quote it's possible i forgot this explanation the united states represents is during his direct whichever so are you referring to the one in which the person was killed i have to confess i have now that's fine because i've lost track of your honor that's why i am directing the court's attention to these ten pages because they bring into sharp focus what has happened in th sequence before there's been no mention of shootings other than the single shooting and he's been consistent up into these ten pages it is revealing and i i would have to say it is misleading in traditional brief to bring in the killing of mr hose and because that killing was unrelated it happened in one nine hundred eighty four seven years earlier according to mr taffs own testimony had absolutely nothing to do with the se since he was not there he heard about that killing and then in the end these ten pages all of a sudden the consistent story of one killing turns into one shooting turns into three shootings and the killing not of someone whom we heard was killed by someone who was next to him these are not minor issues they are material issues the explanation i would suggest it's possible i forgot quote unquote adequate immigration judge reasonably found it completely implausible that mr taft would remember only at the end of three hearings two more shootings one of which was far more horrific than anything previously related and the immigration judge concluded on substantial evidence the piece inconsistency is our material and went to the heart of mr taps asylum claim however if this court were to find that the evidence is so overwhelming and and that no reasonable fact finder could find anything other than that mr tapped is credible then it must remain in this case to the board for consideration on the merits this case is before this court on a single issue credibility there's been no decision on the merits and no decision with respect to discretion of asylum well maybe  say let it was before the board right yes your honor and they considered it your honor the decision is that the immigration judge said that they relied upon the immigration judge's decision and any additional evidence they must have deemed to not have been to create an error in that decision the court in that case determined that this court lacks authority in the removal case to reinstate voluntary departure if that voluntary departure grant has expired while it's true that in a as we take case the course did not apply that holding retroactively here there's no reason not to follow the law that case simply summarized the law that had changed in one thousand nine hundred six by an act of congress and  particularly here your honor i think it is useful in the timing that case zazai to carrillo had been decided almost four months before petitioner filed its briefs and it had been decided eleven months before