ability includes fundamental fairness in this case we have the functional equivalent of secret evidence your honor this was a fundamentally flawed credibility determination let me tell you why first of all client was not given a chance to cross examine witnesses against him proceedings to afford the alien a reasonable opportunity to confront the witnesses against him in this case that monica coopers was the fraud investigator and she when she found just one colonel spoke to another colonel who happened to have a personal vendetta against my client and it's not so much monica cooper that who's statements were authentic ated it's the people who've specially prepared these letters and statements that they gave monaco cooper's that i think were fundamentally unfair to my client because he never got a chance to say riga any questions or when she went in pain the police report they said that with she went in ten years after the fast and it's not the records that were admitted you know we don't know what the source of those going to fail to mention earlier yes then i can explain that and then i would like to sit down for my rebuttal now the reason is that he he seated himself in the record he did not know the process he was not represented when he or the other but more importantly there was an abundance of evidence here to support the immigration judge's decision that the applicant was not entitled to silence an awful lot no the standard is that the evidence has to compel a conclusion that the immigration judge was wrong in this fact finding you know the words that no reasonable fact finding we could have if well i think first of all the that evidence was properly administered and there was no violation of due process and secondly that there was plenty of other evidence and even if the court were to discount that was no because the report of the state department was attested to in the manner required by the ins regulations the federal rules of evidence do not apply in the immigration proceedings it's a different standard here you have a lot of cases saying there are circumstances in which not presenting a critical witness for  it's not inherent in the nature of the immigration proceeding is that there is no inherent right to cross examine witnesses and in this case the as i say the report was was someone has presented for cross examination yes well we did cite at least one case i know that said that it's not the government's burden to produce some process  well i can't find it right now but i and i don't want to because i have another important point to make about this which is the report of the state department investigator stated that she herself went through the office of the peruvian air force official who she was whose letter was attached as an exhibit which is the subject of the objection and she saw with her own eyes that the problems with the report for example there was a police report that was found to be falsified and she stated in her the state department investigations his claim that there were threats against him and he produced a falsified police report which the immigration judge said that takes away a lot of his credibility that this police report was falsified well as the demeanor of the witness of the applicant that he was not credible well he said that the demeanor was one of the factors that he took into into account he did not state specifically when the african testified as to business to mean or was such and such that the demeanor was one of the factors their demeanor is in the is the first word of the third  was largely implausible and unpersuasive i mentioned ok there were other problems with the his story  retiring from the peruvian air force which he said was because of these threats was rather that for disciplinary reasons because he had when he was serving in chile he had saying this person had a self interest and he was never well he alleged that the person he was not on good relations with the person at the person had a vendetta or whatever against him but there was no evidence of that ordinarily i mean an ordinary the there was no violation of due process in the context of this of an immigration proceeding the requirements of the process were satisfied and the petition should be denied process problems with nothing