applying for asylum by something approaching two years we have jurisdiction to review her excuse for missing the deadline but the i g made an adverse credibility finding against her with regard to her excuse for missing the deadline and then we look at the records just see whether there's of stansell evidence to support the adverse credibility finding her parents don't corroborate the arrest that she her doctor doesn't corroborate the rate that she claims and her husband and family don't corroborate her claim that they told her to do away so what we've got ok according to the  testify consistent consistently however the credibility of the incredibility finding was related to the documentary evidence that was submitted to sooner argues that the minor t they told her to be right but they couldn't explain her mental state according to the regulations chile for eighty five that  depression i think that the proper thing to do is to send this case back and allow the petitioner to better supplemental record with evidence about her mental state which would go g can't make a negative inference from the petitioners failure to sign a waiver without analyzing how that inference relates to the credibility similarly seen the i simply stated that credibility given the fact that she testified she didn't want to sign it because then everyone back in her village could find out that she was raped and had her kids been ultimately denied and she'd have to be removed exactly and here she is i j himself noted she testified pretty consistent with her application there were no inconsistences nothing that went to the heart of the c but she gave whatever she was able to give we don't know exactly what she told the doctor to write from the record i believe it's true that she didn't tell him anything she just needed document requests she can't control it he put it in the letter so contents was there any suggestion that in medical document coming from india and in order to protect the privacy of the patients and would not mention rape directly i don't recall any discussion about what a waiver would entail i don't think there was any explanation on the record by the government counsel to the petitioner to sort with the assertion that the court has jurisdiction to review this component of that's in your brief that's in my brief but the court asked us to be prepared to it possessed limited jurisdiction to review a determination that an alien failed to prove that he fell within the exception based on changed country conditions which affected his asylum application when that's review the court was specifically dealing with one of the exceptions it wasn't dealing with the change it was dealing with the changed circumstances use of the limit the holding is limited to the changed circumstances changed country just conditions exceptional circumstances is was d country conditions which materially affect the asylum application is that is the exception dealt with by the court in ramadan but the alien has also an opportunity to claim an exception based upon  extraordinary circumstances which led to her and i'm asking what's the difference one is according to this court not a discretionary matter and exceptional circumstances is a discretionary matter subjective or dependent upon the identity or person or entity determining the question and that is the case with exceptional circumstances just as it is with extreme hardship i mean this court has always held that extreme hardship is a discretionary determination and again just as with exceptional circumstances in this case if i did take it that you don't want to weigh in with a memorandum this decision you'd rather lose or win by an opinion on jurisdiction so the supreme court can interpret the real life your honor my desire with respect to that i have to d respect to that i just want the court to reach the correct conclusion and there's a second reason why rama doesn't ramadan does not affect jurisdiction in this case the court test in ramadan was whether or not the question was resolved through application of walk to undisputed historical facts and in changed country conditions you know the facts that are relied upon in a changed country conditions determination are historical fact it's based a supplemental briefs on the issue because i you know perhaps it is necessary to do so but again the government's position is that ramadan doesn't at all address the second exception which i've just been discussing for the several reasons and even if the second reason doesn't fly i think it does but even if it doesn't the first reason that it's a discretionary determination i think takes it out of ramadan because again they were concerned with the suspension clause issue and as the court observed in ramadan substantial evidence there's no evidence compelling contrary conclusion immigration judge has affirmed by the board made an adverse credibility determination that adverse credibility determination is  former terrorists were felt safe enough to return to the country in one nine hundred ninety seven then that really casts a grave credibility doubt upon a story that in one thousand nine hundred nine the indian police came to their house came to this woman's aliens house and persecuted because her brother they thought their brother might have had some ties to terrorists finally i guess the immigration judge did properly determine that even if