them anyway line sixteen through twenty ok anyway so when you were when you any family were attacked in mogadishu would it coming out your name over there just attacking the home because it was in the neighborhood why they were being i packed personally yes then years in the us personally so forth then pages one sixty eight and one sixty nine he talks about the fact that he used to work for a garage as a this again tells me that he was attacked by the u s c because of his belonging to the mother money because of his working for for a garage was which the u s he believed was working in cahoots with the with the grounds because if they're back in because he was helping the government then it could be first political beliefs second you're honored that the testimony and the stick stayed reports show that the  for the government in sort of lor lor position job such as whether some of the state department reports confirmed that that's that's the position that would hold you're going as are you telling us we shouldn't be worse off because it's actually on page  one page one twenty three or on or he did he talks about being his house being bombed and being attacked and that's when they say when he's asked and why would they have to because i'm one of the smaller stripes in somalia what tribe was  or so on and then continuing that conversation few lines down he's asked and why would they after you because i'm one of the smaller stripes in somalia what pride was that mother and why were these people after the mother one because they declaration he talks about the fact that they threw a bomb over is an interest house and brother's brother's body was cut to pieces as leg was injured he darts here also the fact that his leg was injured and he managed to escape through that window and in that testimon he is not required to exhaust his claim that he did not receive a full and fair hearing before coming to this court part of the main crux to petitioners claimed is that he did not receive a full and fair hearing because  image gratian judge was not a neutral fact finder and because the immigration judge did not allow him to present some evidence and he closed those arguments in a due process claim that those arguments were not exhausted before this is clearly held that an alien in deportation proceedings is entitled to due process and the government does agree they're entitle to a full and fair hearing with a neutral fact finder and they're allowed to submit evidence but if you have a claim that you were not in front of a neutral fact finder or you were not allowed to submit evidence you must submit that claim to be i before your petition for of discretion or procedural problems beloved so they are not right for review here and i briefly want to address the petitioner's argument that well actually to be i did address them because you can see it in address that your honor i i also when i read the immigration judge's decision it's a thirty three page decision and there are a lot of reasons that are thrown out there to challenge the petitioners credibility i would think the government actions concede that he testified that he lived in kenya for nine years in kenya he fathered four children while he was there and he supported a family of eleven and he also testified the contradiction comes in where he says and i think it went to his firm reestablishment claim he says i was there and accepted in kenya i couldn't work there i didn't have any papers there and the judge was looking at this other testimony that for nine years he was able month for the past nine years and when he's asked and this is questioning by the government attorneys he's asked do you have the names of your brothers in law where they live where they work where their telephone how did you contact them and the explanation that he gave the judge did imply incredible the explanation was we never contacted them they just contacted us so i never had their phone number and then the judge does go on to say as honor addressed that there isn't any corroborating evidence from these family members and i do understand that these family members are in saudi arabia but there's evidence in the record just show that that corroborating eviden months every other once every two months he spoke to her by telephone and he also testified in another point in the record that she had caught a way of communicating a contacting with her brothers in law there was evidence there to persecution or there's the fear of persecution and i believe it technically goes to the infirmary establishment because there's evidence in the record that he was in kenya for nine years and he also put in a other choice i don't think it actually ties back into his fear of persecution back in somalia but it goes to his entire story that he had to flee he had to go to kenya and he couldn't stay there he had to then get six thousand dollars and be smuggled saying that you didn't have firm resettlement but were there ms ali was able to support herself for five years working under the table as a housemaid supposed but that is good and does go to the question of whether it is working under the table if he's in nothing in the record to indicate that at most he got money for them for about six years second what he testified to was these brothers in law are scant acted then they always initiated the contact send them the money that he never had their their phone calls the neighbor and the neighbors go and get his wife and then he tossed around the phone with the mum for the neighbors he has a number for the neighbors but he doesn't have a number for the brothers in law because he's never called the brothers in law the brothers in law just like he calls the neighbors