is whether the immigration judge added as a matter of law and requiring in requiring the petitioner to corroborate his credible testimony in support of his asylum withholding for movement and cad applications the law in this circuit as it existed prior to the real i d act in two thousand and five did not require an asylum african to corroborate his credible testimony and even if corroboration was required it had to be reasonable under all circumstances in this case the immigration judge and on both grounds she required the petition to corroborate his testimony that credible and she also did not make a determination whether such corroboration was reasonable under all circumstances in this case  of georgia applied asylum in the united states are let me ask you this as to mean that she credited the testimony and didn't require corroboration there we would assume there was that reasonably  held subject of fear of future persecution but how would that affect objective fear of persecution in the future right your honor in this case corroboration was not i mean the judge  not say that she that the petitioner feels to corroborate and that's why his claim that's why he was not credible she said that his failure to corroborate because he failed to corroborate he he feel to meet his burden of proof for asylum and not necessarily that his fear of returning to georgia was not reasonable under the circumstances she said basically threats he i mean several several of his comrades were murdered or forced to flee the country i think if you if she fully credited that testimony and the testimony of here's his expert testified in court that the change in regime did not affect the respondents to fear of returning because the power structure did not i mean they had not changed shevardnadze the current president of georgia has been a target of numerous assassin attempts which are not affected by the fact that now he's the president so responding to the petitioner still has a reasonable fear of returning theist on that the immigration judge should make a specific finding as to that issue meaning that immigration can a judge cannot just make a boilerplate finding that well now there's a regime change there for the asylum applicants fear of returning is not reasonable in this case the immigration judge did not take into account how the change in government would make the petitioners return to georgia rest what do we do with the state department letter your honor even the state department letter was extremely general in nature state department said that it did not specifically say whether someone who was targeted targeted in the past by the pro nationalists in believe that the immigration judge added on that account as well what are you asking us to do your honor we would require we would ask the court to remand this case back for an immigration judge to determine in the first instance number one whether under these specific based on the specific facts in this case a reasonable applicant would fear returning back as i mentioned earlier corroboration was required in this case which violated the to agree with you and remand this case back to the v a is there is there anything that you would tend to do to supplement the record on can country conditions in georgia today yes your honor we would as i mentioned before there have been major events in georgia since two thousand and eight that also showed that the ethnic nationalism in georgia is well underway in fact the reason why the sort of the russian army went into georgia because they said that if they did not intervene there could be a possibility of a civil war very much like the way we had in the balkans and one thing i'd like to point out and the expert as well as the petitioner's witness a which is that the court is looking at the agency's decision to to deny asylum in withholding and remove all based on the entire record in the record behind me and only would immigration judge went on to make a finding after looking at the department of state report and the whole record including mr parker who was petitioners witnessed that there were change country conditions and that again the court is looking at the administrative record as it stands now and unfortunately this is quite an old case and the hearing was in one nine hundred ninety nine the department of state and the articles were all sort of spanning only way he's going to be able to supplement the record is to file another motion to reopen in the before the beyond if exposed and if your honor is would hold that there was legal error based on the record that was before judge went on from there after saying that it would be application was undermined because of the lack of the transcripts and certain documentary evidence being immigration judge went on to note that there is in the record department of state articles and and other evidence in the record that shows that the country conditions there was a change in regime no actually it's so your answer was yes to the second part of just like to point out i believe it was your opinion recently to be are you cannot engage in fact finding based on change country conditions if more fact finding is required  correct your honor and that's what we request for just let me ask you a question then did he live after his last episode with the authorities didn't live rather peacefully for about eight years in georgia no your honor he actually he came to the united states the threats against him they occurred after he came to the united states so his claim f