because of an untimely filing and the secondary issue is whether this court has jurisdiction under the real i d act of you review such a finding the second issue is whether the idea is that verse into a lawful marriage and and i one thirty titian was filed denied by the appropriate agency and then subsequent to that denial there was a child born of the relationship in  and was going to try to get some kind of status by being married is that right yes the the problem is that the service finds that the petition was withdrawn and on the withdrawal document the supposed wife says because i married him for a favor for a friend he promised me money to marry i haven't gotten the money so i'm outta here i mean it's a fake marriage and you're trying to use a fake marriage as an extraordinary circumstance to get him out from under for not filing with any your heart you know with all due respect your deny that allegation by the services and stated that is that what is that what she said presumably yes in that box room it's gets what she said it's in the administrative record of the navy and there's a finding by the service that this was a she wasn't telling the truth that's to respond as if you that she was mistaken or she is not being truthful in that in that document in any event she wasn't present in court to testify and be subject to appropriate cross examination on that issue perhaps the record could have been better developed and responded be permitted to further testify as to why he felt that those extraordinary circumstances excused his untimely  g why why is that an extra let's assume for the sake of argument that the marriage was a valid argument yes and then something happened they got a fight it was a divorce why is that an extraordinary circumstance it's a fact but why is that an extraordinary circumstance that would relieve him of filing i mean there's nothing that excludes him for filing within a year just because he's married what i believe the regulation in suffolk regulation yeah and why is this an extraordinary circumstance it doesn't prevent him at all from filing for asylum within the year period granted i would submit that this situation falls under the changed circumstances subsection the regulation rather than the extraordinary circumstances  if i remember correctly from my reading of the regulation i believe exposure circumstances make it as is as cheap as you want to change circumstance but still why should that excuse him from filing it doesn't prevent him from filing it doesn't theoretically doesn't prevent him from filing not even theoretically it just doesn't prevent him from filing granted it was petitioners because what he was rolling the dice at the best and that's not really a reason to get him out from under the one your demand that the law says is in place it that's correct your honor we would submit that his mistaken assumption that this marriage was entered into in good faith and because the i want thirty three year old subsequently for reasons not of his own doing change circumstances if we punch through and get to the adverse credibility determination what's let me ask you to focus on the on the application to spew why isn't petitioner was adversely credible and also refers to government counsel's closing argument which peter smith says not evidence when what he says is one i didn't believe the asylum application and then in closing his closing statement he says testify on a subject he listened to both of them and said i find this one believable not one not how is that some really well respondent did testify that if he had been presented with a declaration which presumably did not include additional events that he testified to at hearing that he would have made those changes and included those those events in his declaration i believe that was the central issue with the i j a but more importantly your hon the i j a did not specify the basis for his adverse credibility finding with the exception of that one reference that i had mentioned and he is required as i understand to specify on the record each and every basis for the adverse credibility finding and make that connection between why that testimony is fatal to see respondants asylum claim which was not done and a graveyard in one hand you want to take some that on appeal to the board mr kumar's only argument with regard to his late filing was that his the law firm that he had engaged scale to complete and pursue an asylum application he doesn't make any argument regarding a cha circumstance with regard to his marriage or that constitute an extraordinary circumstance in fact during his direct testimony the only testimony that was elusive with regard to that was on cross examination he never provided any affirmative argument with regard to why he failed to file within one year and then as i said on appeal to the board he only argued that his prior counsel had failed the incline law firm that he had engaged to complete and pursue an asylum application now before this court he's claiming that number one he had a marriage that he had relied on would get him some sort of status and he also makes an argument regarding change country conditions none of which he ever argued other before the finding cases turning to the credibility finding i would just point the court's attention to the fact that mr kumar mean several different statements with regard to the declaration number one he said that he didn't sign it  later he said that his that he did sign it but that he didn't have time to i guess review it he later said that mr c can signed it for him so as the court pointed out it's clear that the immigration judge had placed and in the place of the other person's name so it's clear that the immigration judge relied on many different instances either mission inconsistency lack of detail to support his adverse credibility findings so you know if that what is the discrepancy regarding whether or not he reviewed this occasion or not go to the heart of his client well the problem of the immigration judge cited was the fact that there was a very detailed declaration it was seven or eight pages declaration and then he provided testimony which did not which was in conflict with the declaration in that the declaration didn't include some of these facts that he testified to during the hearing it's an immigration judge said that that went to the heart of his claim in terms of he was claiming that he participated in union organizing border campaigns things like but didn't include that in a seven page very lengthy declaration so you know that he's relying on his participation and in this union organization to support his asylum claim however didn't include you know very relevant facts in an otherwise detailed declaration and the immigration judge found that you know that was material and you know that is substantial evidence to support the finding there's nothing in the record his to that document that she she had written there's also a frog you know it was really just his statement that that wasn't the case that he entered in this marriage for appropriate purposes but there's nothing  you know other than his own self serving statement on the record that the marriage was legitimate  unless the court has any further questions to go back to first point us in terms of jurisdiction i gather you would agree that we do have jurisdiction decide what our particular allegation constitutes as a position rests more on the fact that the facts are in dispute here because they were never vetted either like i said before the immigration judge or they were never vetted to the board the arguments are being made before this court now have never been that it so we would argue that is i were talking about is there's a factual finding about once when someone came in the country or not we're not going to review that i mean but here we have an argument that this constitutes an extraordinary circumstance seems to me custom and responded testified that if he had been presented with a declaration that he would have included or brought somebody to tension the fact that additional events needed to be included in the declaration so respond as testimony as possible  just one other point the the i g did note on the record that there were documents supporting documents rather which seemed to corroborate respondent's claims so he didn't dismiss his asylum claim wholesale he just placed on do you wait on certain impermissible factors to two bases adverse credibility finding and we would submit that the record is not clear enough on what specifically the i j  relief from a one year bar of prior counsel i believe that there were three there have been three of these five percent or one of you a former counsel i did i do believe just made brief reference to the fact that he did testify the marriage before the i j i can't recall whether or not there was mention of the two thousand who had fiji which would have also served as a basis for change circumstances but in any event i believe that there was a brief reference that if any