simply wrong for starters the government says mr strength failed the proper proof that he was a member of the akali dal party although he had two years to do so after being placed in proceedings last true he didn't offer proof that he was a member of the colleague he was a member of a colleague consider you still have to get over hurdle but i j has found your your client not to be credible on the stand right now would you go to the question of credibility yeah i agree i mean the immigration judge made a negative credibility finding in this case and he gave four reasons for that first because we didn't say much about this in our brief the immigration judge was concerned that the birth certificate that mr singh offered has a stamp from a police station and the i g found it improbable that mr singh's mother would have gone to the police station the very police station from which these police officers are searching for her son in order to get this down well what's troubling about that is that mr singh never testified that his mother went to the police station if you look at the record when he was asked do you know how your mother got that this was a birth certificate that he had seen before and it clearly could not have been a birth certificate that he saw before yeah that's true he indicated that he'd had a birth certificate he'd seen his person to get in india and this particular person if it has a late registration registration we have no idea why there was a late registration i mean it makes sense that it's possible that whenever you go get a birth certificate you need to register again i don't know it's possible that the old records were destroyed by fire or who knows you know we don't know it's pure not really sure of that your honor i can't tell from those photographs you know how the kids are in those pictures and i don't know that the immigration just to tell with any certainty but the other thing that amazes me about this particular that i think is important about this particular issue is issue came up again and the government lawyer asked him well how old are your brothers in those pictures and in response to that question he said well maybe the fifteenth and thirteen well fifteen and thirteen would mean that the pictures were taken  saying i well i was i was sixteen or seventeen or fifteen six that we have five year gap i'm i might have been fifteen or sixteen you know they must have been fifteen and thirteen which would make me which would make me too wanting it's a three year gap i mean if you're saying he was actually twenty at the time the pictures were testifying truthfully and representing who he is and we can't even get ages right here but the important thing is what was the question asked of him when he's not even in the picture he's he's he's not looking at a picture of himself when he was asked how old were you he's looking at some pictures of his during that conversation he misspoke and he sent the first week of march i mean again this is just clearly an example of him misspeaking it's some confusion about the dates there's no confusion about the sequence he makes clear that the police came to his home after his father's arrest was a short time photograph problem deals with confusion in fact isn't deal with confusion at all nor does the immigration judge talk about it dealing with immigration judge talk about other things and confusion but this one he is basically saying that been taken in one thousand nine hundred eight and that's after the date when your father would have disappeared therefore your father couldn't have disappeared so you're lying about everything else well i think if you look at the truth how the testimony about this i mean and you know where your parents oh my parents or my neighbor's house you know was this guy twenty when he went to his aunt's house during this particular religious ceremony or was he sixteen years old i mean it's a little bit of a difference there and the judge's office waited that you know he's  yes my brothers are thirteen or fourteen in that picture and i was fifteen sixteen or seventeen and then later on it's the you know the judge and the service that put it together you know when they start doing the arithmetic to where your brother should be and the immigration judge said that he thought it was highly suspicious that the mother would go down to the very place that allegedly killed her husband that allegedly was hounding her and her family for the whereabouts of her boy and you know but know room to come to you completely reasonable conclusion and the immigration judge in this particular case came to the reasonable conclusion that he believed that it was very unlikely that anyone whether it be the mother or anyone related here would actually go down there and speak the person to the camp when they were actively pursuing him and that that would draw undue attention to a threat a death threat truly existed and if they were actually truly terrified i mean you'd be pretty scared to go down to the police station that allegedly murdered your father you know so i think that that's where the immigration judge is going with that and absolutely you know now we can come to two different conclusions but has petitioner ok thank you very much and i ask you one question if you if you prevail what happens to we we mandate for further proceedings with the direction to disregard the average credibility finding ye