in addition the court must also reverse the boy's decision upholding the immigration judges erroneous denial of asylum given that the immigration judge wholly failed to consider significant evidence before her now the immigration judge principally relied on reports of the dead by the government in concluding that two of the documents submitted on mr upon his behalf were fraudulent mr panero however provided compelling evidence substantially undermining the contents of the government's report specifically the conclusions there are now while the immigration judge chose to accept the evidence submitted by the government at face value she did not agree or rejected m over two pages of his investigation now the contents of that recitation of his credentials were identical to what the immigration judge would have found in as let me just let me just get the point here with respect to dr who's that really does gupta who was the senior medical had a senior medical position at a particular hospital the evidence showing that he was no such person was ever original affidavit was that he was posted at the hospital in that particular capacity in one nine hundred ninety not that he had never worked at that that hospital prior to that day and in fact doesn't fix that with his second  unfortunately the investigator didn't ask about the nine hundred eighty eight treatment the investigation focused on his posting at the hospital in one thousand nine hundred four which goes back to the previous issue which was raised and i guess all of this goes to a question of whether combined with the conflicting testimony and all this some way but whether the jury could draw conclusions based on the evidence that you proposed then that is one conclusion that she could have reached but the immigration judge never made it that far she just rejected the evidence out of hand based on this issue the un availability for c and her third reasoning which was her conclusion that conflicting statements under oath had been provided now that is just wrong in fact none of the government's evidence was taken under oath  n a year to do something about our government for x well your honor mister mr potter doesn't actually challenge that the government investigators heard what they heard so it's at best unclear whether any interactive toys submitted to the government investigators would have actually yielded any additional information the government several other doctors who were miliard with dr gupta but as noted the immigration judge never got there she never actually evaluated that evidence and assessed it or weighed it in relation to the government's evidence she just substantial evidence to sustain the reasonable fact finder here you know you've made good argument about there might be other evidence which would be conflicting or there might be other evidence which would be a good argument to make to the jury but the bottom line is this reasonable fact finder had all that evidence in front of it and relied on other evidence which it said was stansell evidence to make its findings you know i guess my worry is what part of substantial evidence is not substantial there are many kind of things here in this record that were pretty easy to see that there's evidence to go where they're going well your honor i think actually our our concerns with the immigration judges failure to grapple with the evidence are really principle here and we are asking for a remount to allow the board to consider that evidence in the first instance i'm not asking this court to weigh the evidence and i mean if all we're talking about is the weight she gives to evidence for the wage she doesn't give to have it and she really argue your evidence is here's more weight than the other evidence but there is no evidence that her that's my worry about your argument circuit expressed concern that d h us would be able to unilaterally veto a motion to reopen for any or no reason at all in this case we don't just have any reason or no reason at all we have a reason that's supported by the record but did the be i suggest the reason i mean the reason that you suggest is that there is substantial evidence that in fact the petitioner was not telling the truth but i don't find anything in the b i a record or decisions sorry that would suggest they relied on that at all yesterday the language of the board's  testimony and there is a part of the b i decision which talks about credibility as to their reasoning here no your honor i did not mean to infer that the the i a decision makes reference to the discretionary to have them consider these situations because i only find one reason that they might have not granted the motion to reopen and that is the government didn't want him to be opposed to the government's and it's your honor that the board did not as a matter of discretion because the reason raised by the h s was the credibility finding made by the immigration judge and affirmed by the board and the prior decision issued by the board because the board had already evaluated that at that and that it come to the same conclusion that one piece of paper that we have that's the difficulty i understand that intellectually that might have been what happened but whenever we do that when we imagine what might happen to the i a e a we're always that the immigration judge who denied the motion to reopen had not taken consideration of the merits of d h as its opposition which is here as i had previously indicated they had already fully considered the adverse credibility determination in the prior a have an obligation as counsel has argued to at least go a little bit further to make a determination rather than ignoring the evidence i disagree with with opposing counsel's characterization of been presented with with the government report the immigration judge suggested that he propound in iraq or tories that he noticed a deposition or that he moved for a telephonic conference and he could cross examined the government's investigator and over a year he failed to do that he instead chose to pursue this route of having his own investigation conducted and just admitted additional documents when the hearing was reconvened for him to submit those documents he offered no redirect to testimony he called no more witnesses to testify in ashcroft and two thousand and four decision from the ninth circuit and then i sort i concluded that the submission of fraudulent documents going to the heart of one's claim can justify an adverse credibility determination which is exactly what happened in this case  s and as as we've noted the standard here is substantial evidence that immigration judges determination should not be overturned unless the evidence compels a conclusion to the contrary moreover the mere possibility of your own two different conclusions from the record is not thirty first anniversary of the enduro gandhi assassination however the letter is dated february tenth one thousand nine hundred ninety three several months before he vehemently testified that he had renewed his membership and membership in this organization is more than a mere detail it is the organization on whose behalf he allegedly engaged in these political activities which are the basis of his plane his relationship his organization is therefore fundamental and any inconsistency with regard to this membership goes to the heart  in their opening brief opposing counsel suggest that the course it takes additional notice that posttraumatic stress disorder has a component of a lack of athletic however that was never an explanation proper to the immigration court or to the board you unfortunately we don't have time to go through each of the bases relied upon by the immigration judge or her denial i would just like to touch on the demeanor issue raised by opposing counsel which i think is particularly particularly salient the immigration judge a statement that mr pani did not display the amount of emotion he quote should have displayed is nothing more than speculation and this court has repeatedly passed in against this type of boilerplate finding that doesn't really give us any basis to review the immigration judge's decision even without the judicial notice issue i think this court has repeatedly rejected precisely this type of demeanor based finding because it's just too general to