circumstances but he is with us by conference call and will be participating in the argument as well as in our post argument conference we have on the following cases on today's calendar submitted and held instead that the beatings did constitute persecution and remanded the case for two back to the immigration for reconsideration of two issues one was whether the presumptions to which my client was entitled  persecution were overcome by evidence of current country conditions and the second was in the absence of an adverse credibility finding or table credibility finding would be i asked the immigration judge every man to additionally make a credibility he's finding that the applicant's testimony was in some respects veg the i g in this case did not specify what more he would have liked to have her concerning what callous and manage my client was not  chased the difference that's according to the i j a is less when it's not a demeanor finding secondarily we have to balance two things immediately my client mumbles he's a little incoherent he doesn't always seem to understand the questions but you're is are not such substantial errors that this person should be subjected to the likely that have been killed if he's telling the truth these clients who come by these applicants who come before the immigration court religion he then states that it's his party he then says ambiguously that they want callous stand from the government and then when his own attorney asks him seemingly exasperated for the last time what is  rebutted by the department of state report which indicates that there are fourteen million sikhs in india four million of which live outside the current job area and that almost no one outside of a can job area supports the idea of a separate it was also inconsistent with regards to the medical treating the injury spending so logically suffered in the medical treatment that he received as a result of those alleged injuries during his first hearing the claim that he was treated for two months and then he had an injury near his went to the doctor then he's confronted with his prior testimony that he had just stated that he was treated for two months and then he claims oh yes it was a small doctor that i saw and he describes different injuries though he describ excused then was that he forgot about it not that he was confused with regards to the question as to whether they meant the time that he was actually in the doctor's care or whether it was a licensed physician versus a medical i believe the letter is on its face suspect because it it's advocacy on the back on behalf of the petitioner it doesn't say that there's any personal knowledge of the petitioner and rather writes i read that but i guess from my perspective that i mean the letter is the most powerful clobbering evidence has and the i g is rejection of it in a way that seems to be disingenuous i  why would we expect it to be objective i mean if he's a member and they're trying to help them why would it be anything other than it was argumentative as it is they want to be i don't see how they ca reliability of that particular piece of corroborating evidence while i've got got got the floor for a second can i ask i'm not sure i understand what we expect of people who are of a certain religion who are quizzed about the tenets of their fa to help resolve that question in other words the ambiguity as to resolved in his favor if that letter is to be believed and nobody from the government seems to believe that the