appropriate and that his testimony was consistent with his written declaration the immigration judge nevertheless found that he was not credible this negative credibility standing is contrary to law not supported by there is no specifics and that we have no idea what testimony he's referring to when he says that and so that does cover the entire hearing that's one issue the other issue is the issue that the immigration judge and then his role as a neutral fact finder it is pervasive throughout that when there is a violation and a constitutional violation not that just an assertion that the constitutional violation takes it out of a determination within the statute and because it is a constitutional violation we're not asking you to review whether he filed within a one year or whether he had  is that when there is a constitutional violation it's not an act under the under the statute and therefore it is reviewable by this court but again i'm we're only asking that this court review the constitutional violation and determine that there was a constitutional  that his testimony was not as detailed as to its declaration which again is a violation of his due process because the immigration judge and several occasions move her on instead we don't need to hear your testimony because we have a detailed declaration number to the immigration judge there's only one place where he points out what he calls an impossibility in the actual testimony and that is whether when farah told the hospital why he was that he had a dancing accident and not that he was attacked by a gang he explained that when he had previously got to the hospital he told that he was attacked by a gang and he got poor treatment so the second time he told them wasn't dancing accident and the immigration judge said that was not possible despite the fact that there's four hundred fifty pages of documentation testimony regarding the hospital that your recent decision in chan addresses that issue directly that the immigration judge did not give any notice or an opportunity to explain why he didn't say it was based on the attack and orientation so that is something that this court needs three man at least for him to give an opportunity to explain that in terms of this opinion at nineteen to twenty this is there is no inconsistency the judge points to no inconsistency most of the factual way that we could consider a rational person to be hate that he would make halting just rumors towards possibly addressing his immigration situation that he would be slow to act on knowledge once he got it he would not want knowledge that may be a the judge says you know he responded cannot have its cake and eat it too and that it's impossible that he didn't know about his time because very he was a member of the larger is knowledgeable him not possible because he found him to be a member of the larger knowledgeable community there is nothing in the record in fact if you look at the record every time he asked mr fair do you have a lot of give brazilian friends are a lot of are you part of the gay community in new york he said no do you have a lot of friends in new york know but there is a large gay community in new york don't you know that now i don't know that he completely twisted the facts in this case and did not base his decision on the facts on this record and we looked at the record in a case that was purely brought on withholding and with the tagalong of here's why didn't apply for asylum and we looked at the evidence and there was a credibility the termination the in favor the petitioner that we agreed with or an adverse credibility finding where we found it was not substantiated we could look at that up the nuance that came out in the withholding ask her the same treatment judge kozinski asked for will you start by answering the question the answer is no your honor ok tell me more the reason is the order and the adverse credibility determination was in fact made initially in the first of the two parts of the here based on the credibility of the testimony associated with so let me start that aside your response is you would have  determination an isolated as to the timeliness of the asylum claim in terms of whether or not it was appropriate with respect to the asylum claim that's correct however this court and i just this didn't occur to me until i was just hearing the dialogue here today this court held recently in a case called kalu be that if you make an adverse credibility determination one where the other you know applies to all matters in all circumstances so given that the adverse credibility only colorblind on family asylum claim but of withholding claim an account claim in the i j a takes the asylum excuse if you well why didn't you file on time takes that first in doesn't believe the reasons the petitioner off first for not having filed on time i was afraid of going into a government office or whatever at that point the immigration judge says to herself or himself i don't believe this guy and i don't have to believe no allegation that the asylum hearing was in any way tainted it was certainly if you read the record it was very full and very fair there is no allegation that anything it was done in the extraordinary circumstances port part of that hearing was inappropriate also requires that adverse credibility determination when it comes to the merits of an asylum withholding your claim must go to go to the heart of the claim can you point to what adverse credibility determination the i j a made that went to the heart of the withholding or catley well it's those two parts that and then the first part again is something that just occurred to me so it doesn't actually if you're in our brief the it clearly goes to the heart of the for her circumstances asylum that wasn't my question i answered trying to answer a question you want to ask i want you to answer my question i am i'm about i'm about to do that i and i just want to add that i want one is the list i don't want a long winded wind up i want to list so while specific adverse credibility findings that the i j a made went to the heart of the withholding or cackling my first point is that the i j a was founded by to the to brazil why did he leave is relevant to that so that this whole question of when you got to the united states what did you do and why what did you intend to do when you left brazil is incredibly relevant to the issue of why you finished appears returning and the immigration judge found that this really is reasoning was not what he was saying it was false he would contradict himself in that reasoning and that impl  inconsistency is that went to the heart of the withholding or kept on you and you started by saying his reasons for feeling brazil in the first right your honor to qualify for withholding you first must be a refugee you hear he would apply for asylum when he got here that was his reasoning for leaving but we've we've never accepted that as a matter of law you know i would say ninety five percent of the asylum claims withholding  kat claims we get you know this involved people who are out of status when they make the application used usually it happens when the deportation or removal notices served on them you know that isha so how could that possibly be inconsistent with his claim of why he left brazil that happens not that there may be all the finally so rare cases i see maybe one or two cases a year of immigration cases where the person applies for asylum when immigration judge say the reason i don't believe you was you didn't apply for asylum during you were here a lawful you waited until you were out of status i have seen a variety of cases in which the circumstances of the departure from the country and how you behaved on your way to the united states and after you became to the united states in consistencies in those matters have reached the level that because that is a very central tene our case law to address that explanation did he know what he's doing he said that the explanation was implausible for exactly the reasons the judge kozinski identified impossible because the the story was his it was his leg was broken by a gang of anti gay thugs and his explanation and this was this it happened months before when he went to the hospital and said what really happened he got bad treatment right and so the next time it happened he went in and said it was a dancing accident and the immigration judge said he said i don't believe that this or this look that's that doesn't make any sense all you had to say is when you say somebody that you know somebody hit me you don't have to say i'm homosexual therefore somebody hit me therefore don't give me treatment or treat me poorly all you have to say is somebody beat me up and that makes sense and it doesn't make sense to say i broke my like dancing in russia particularly dancing but even there with a broken leg and he gets beaten up and he pointed out is not that they like this is not what is the judge of the brain it's going on you know the question is whether any reasonable fact finder could not reach the conclusion that the immigration judge and i don't see how reasonable this world and is there a lot of people suffering from depression post traumatic stress disorder you know what's real thing it's a real thing it's painful for them you understand that guys that were lying on the sidewalk well feet from the door well free from it they were there they were you know why didn't they get up and just walk through the door and ask for he why you know why it was that the from where they were lying on the sidewalk to the door would be the longest hardest journey that ever taken their lives well that's ridiculous twelve claim is whether or not it helps this claim or not and in this case that collateral matter to withholding here is whether or not he had extraordinary circumstances regarding timeliness clearly helped his claim it was clearly done for that purpose to help i of bias if you look at race melendez we have a situation in which an immigration interrupts repeatedly to recognize ammunition of the immigration of the ailing and ignored uncontested facts and misrepresents the record in oral decision and in all these situations this court found that it is constitutional err and the structural air term back to canaan merida we have a situation in which when the i j a denies an alien