after a nine year delay from the point of filing a petition to the point of hearing occurred to him when he was just a child twelve years old and guatemala that he might have been taken out and shot well that's that's kind of go take you know obviously i think that we could probably allegory that this is not a model judicial good temperament all right from the standpoint that you know not to say that everyone probably hasn't at some point in time become impatient with someone but  quite disgusted with your client from the standpoint that you know there were comments made to be a fact that he if he left his wife and child there what sort of man was he and you know things along so you know clearly i think you know you've got all of that in the record i guess the issues you know from the standpoint there's a couple of issues in the credibility and also on the he h as to be able to establish that what occurred was on account of and i see a weakness in the record on linking it you know what you know what and and and also in terms of what that had to do with anything that it was cut off you know you still have to link it to something political something religious or whatever a lot of bad things can happen and particularly i think in this country there was generally you know when you've got a war going on and all of this there could be a lot of bad concerns conscription into the military and i think that there's it's not a minor difference it's like nine years or something along those lines he said he went to a wall and one thing after two years the other he's been there for what eleven years and it's hard you know that i mean that i think that goes to the heart of stains and it's hard to understand how you could that's that nine years then there's then there's also the and went to mexico but how do we get the discrepancy of nine years there i mean because that's that's sort of cast doubt on the whole thing about being conscripted into the military when you have a difference of nine years and those two statements and then also somehow it's really not clear to me how he got this wife and child how that are fits into being in the military for eleven years where there's like there's things in there that just don't fit together his testimony at the hearing is what created this dispute had he been able to amend his petition prior to the hearing there's an argument that these discrepancy would have been worked out in the moment of the hearing we're talking about a totally different mind set of question and answer whereas with that petition during the amendment process is a much more relaxed environment these issues can be brought to light whereas when you're in front of the look let me go back to judge callahan's question i'm still having a hard time finding a political opinion here he doesn't like the girl was apparently there conscripting people but i've read again and it seems the simple fact that being conscripted and being chased around by guerrillas in and of itself doesn't compel a conclusion that was for political for a person's political position or opinion well all he says is i was like i was living there in the gorillas came after me when they were got coming after a lot of people he was one of his political penned he never tells what it was one where another well his political opinion would have been indicated by the fact that he didn't want to be with the gorilla didn't when you're in that hearing in front of the judge you're going to question and answer format and you may or may not cover those bases that walk close those gaps that will that will inh the purpose of an amendment is otherwise and that's what i'm sort of hearing you say that if you have been allowed to man then he would have felt freer to say what he wanted to say but that's a whole that meaning that in and of itself  involved the notion of being shot here in the us that this particular judge would not believe anything that he said well let me let me just read you p secularize i don't want to beat this dead horse but justice scalia says the principal question presented by this case is whether a guerrilla organizations attempt to coerce a person in the performing military service necessarily constitutes persecution on account of political opinion and the answer by the supreme court is no i don't see any distinction between this set of facts and the set of facts and elias zacharias well your honor in the n c case we're talking about a twelve year old who's constricted in zacharias i don't recall the age of the party but i believe it was over than that so that's a distinction without any difference at all it seems that a twelve year old would be a lot less likely to have a political opinion than an eighteen year old for example when it seems so operate against your position not help you well i think we used to we used to we used to do this we used to say if a guerrilla organization comes down and grabs you and forcibly conscript you that can constitute persecution on the grounds of political opinion and the supreme court slapped this down and said no there has to be more than just guerrillas grabbing you and making you do something you don't want to do so i'm sympathetic to your client's position but i don't see how we get out from underneath the supreme court's mandate well the thank you if your time has expired will still give you a minute for a bottle the record you know that probably you know the fact that he isn't taking care of his children you know probably isn't good enough you know if you know maybe you could say it in a way say well i find it hard to believe that all of those things occurred if you would feel it would be safe to leave your or your wife and children there as opposed to you know what kind of man are you if you would do something like that do you agree that sometimes you know simple patrol member in a village starting at age twelve the same as being in the military i got to be honest i don't see that necessarily as a huge discrepancy particularly in circumstances where the i j a wasn't exactly patient and listening to what the petitioner had to say there was a specific reason given by the i j a for quote i cannot believe anything the respondent says close quote is that quote the story is so important to me as a judge and primarily as an american citizen close quote change to me is a tough justification for an average credibility determination when you say means that a good reason for an adverse credibility decision and that the story's apparent to me as an american citizen he said like this guy very much he might not like a person that is not the  you is if we look at the record itself there's nothing that links this to political persecution but the hearing itself was not good at all i don't think the department of justice or the department of homeland security would hold this up for a second as a model of a hearing assume that you get to that point obviously the petitioner challenges whether you should be able to use the current or whatever effect let's go beyond that and say that you are for purposes that this argument was did the i country poor in question that it is the fishing here thank you thank you mr alexander you have a minute if you want it guerrilla conduct and persecution of this values purely political based on the fact that they don't share the guerrillas political affiliation and that's why they