yeah but i was referring to page one eighty eight  well your honor i'm directing examination i don't have the pitch in front of me he stated that on january the sixteenth of ninety three candidates father were arrested before the local elections in which his father was running i remember how much my kids hated it when i was being nominated for a u s district judge they noticed that sort of thing ok i'm page ninety four he starts talking about that arise and the fact that there was an election to him and making it where you'd need an attorney to just you and tell him what office your father ran for well and attorney would help you to clarify what points are important to continue your application and which are not if you're relying five to six years prior to the merits hearing and i think that under the strain of the spearing which would determine the course of his future one small mistake about another person clearly shows that was just a matter of confusion and a trivial mistake you got the day of the month right he's got the year right and really it seems more of a slip of the tongue and an actual mistake that would really go to the heart of the someone who can't remember what he said yes your honor but keeping in mind the events occurred at least five years prior to the hearing i think it's completely reasonable and understandable to have a bit if there is not cogent and specific reasons provided by the fact finder and if the evidence compels the conclusion that the individual was and i was a credible witness and in this case the petitioners have no observed and the answer is he was in jail well there's no reason why he couldn't have been running for election if he's in jail presumably he was on the ballot presumably everybody knew he was running there's no reason why he couldn't sarpanch certainly earlier in his testimony when we did insurance defense or criminal defense or something like that we didn't just sit on our rights as in the burden of proof we've got witnesses well it is the burden of proof and i mean we are sitting on the burden of proof because it is the and if the government thinks that the position or can't prove this case then the government is not going to go in every case and spend millions of dollars member seen crackdown i've never seen any case frankly worth somebody made a call and if i'd ever built a client's millions of dollars  your honor i don't see how you can reach that conclusion that the government you know it's a time the government was prejudiced by their failure to provide evidence when it's not their burden of proof the government does the best they can to litigate these cases and it's not the government's burden to lie and expense to litigate both sides of these cases your hon context your honor hopefully that will answer your question but in the context that i'm talking about the declaration didn't mention sarpanch it just said that they were campaigning not even don't even mention he was running said he was campaigning for the punjab which apparently is petitioner who the petitioner spa they were transporting didn't mention anything about that this when he mentioned at the administrative hearing when he started talking about his father was running for passion and the police arrested him because they didn't want him to oppose their candidate this was just completely new and clearly an attempt some sizes claim clearly another demonstration of this alien's attempt to say anything that he thought he needed to say at whatever time to establish his claim that you know you're not your honor you're not limited to that at all you are limited to determining whether or not the evidence compel the specific reasons because i don't know that i have a case for that and i don't think there's any cases that say that that's all you can listen to your standard review is broad and narrow at the same time you have to whether that's that's why i'm asking you whether or not we have to look at those specific regions but you're saying no we don't that's right he does have to give specific inclusion reasons but in order to affirm those specific and cogent reasons you don't have to  context as well you're talking about someone who obviously had to think it was required to think about these dates when he was writing his asylum application he should have thought about these dates when he was preparing for his asylum to the date that's an indication of somebody as a judge rollason indicated who isn't really sure about his story so we think the dates are not minor they go to the heart of the claim i mean these are adventure which happened to him which  provide the basis for his asylum point he shouldn't have been confused about those and the immigration judge was quite right in in holding him to those disparities let me just thank you coun