relied on petitioners failure to apply for asylum in france or mexico and right to the united states and this court precedent does not allow feeling to apply for asylum in another country to support a negative credibility finding  petitioner statement that he came here for medical treatment for his wife which a statement that he made to a border patrol agent when he was arrested after nearly drowning in the rio grande river the more you came here sick and then she had a couple seizures she couldn't take care of her because she was working didn't have anyone else to take care of her so we sent her back to around this he explained well actually your honor that is this is that case but he the one that actually went into a visa stamped for him and gotten proper visas and all of that and so he was speculating about that he must have changed the date also and why he might have done that because it would have been after this first arrest but ultimately that it's a ground of being able to leave the country if you are in the circumstances who are with a passport oh this court has determined that being able to exit the country and even being able to get a travel document does not go to the heart of the claim it is not fail to an asylum claim and as particularly in a situation like this where he did have an intermediary he paid five thousand dollars to that intermediary to safely shut up him reflects is that he got a passport in one thousand nine hundred two and then his child was born and ninety five and he put her name on that on the passport because they couldn't put an infant photo in the baby was born in january and he couldn't put that they don't allow photographs of incense on his passport so the passport that he had did not have a photo of the child but he'd given it to an agent and the agent had asked for a bunch of photos so presumably the agent had dealt with the photos to  get everything consistent so that the issue date and all of that comported with the photos that were on the passport so he he never testified that he put that photo on that passport i mean that was something that the part of judge whaley's question if the if the agent if the agent explanation to to mr hashemi is credible that he needed to change the date in order to make it appear after the rest of the government would be able to correlate his arrest with with the passport then why wouldn't he did it after the second arrest rather than just after the first arrest well and that's where he just simply we had to speculate he didn't know because and this court has held that even misrepresentations about a travel document and even if he was making this or it misrepresentations about the travel document this court is how that that doesn't go to the heart of the claim sometimes and well in this case in terms of going to the heart of the it like doesn't necessarily go to the heart i would submit that this does not go to the heart of the claim as to whether i mean whether or not a passport was issued in ninety five when he remained in the country for several years and then to that traveling after the second arrest which was  any inconsistency between those he then adds an amendment correction and he says i was held for fourteen days and then during his testimony he said that he was held for ten days  so i'm having trouble between the four days ten days and fourteen days understanding the truth well your honor the first statement says several second initial statement said four but days during which he was also beaten he corrected that discrepancy before going into court and then in court that is what he testified to he testified to being held for four days without any  solitary confinement and then he was taken out beaten and held additional ten days so he was consistent with the corrections that he had had submitted to the court and the i think the court simply just didn't see that a man blindfold me let me down the hall he was beaten and tortured the policeman then beat him and forced me into car drove me to the city and released me right and that's what he corrected he said and he says that in court might be minor errors and you need to miscommunications and so you submitted that correction sheet and that's what was done before he ever testified so it's and he never testified to the several either and it really boils down to his fourteen and several is that does not support substantial perhaps you can be reconciled on the cold record of what we do when and i j said as i sat here i watched the witness i've seen his body language i've seen the way he talks i've seen the way he smiles when asking questions and i don't believe him well story but she did not explain how how why how that was and that's something that can be reviewed from the record in terms of because this court does allow in certain demeanor findings to look at the record and see if it's supported if the record support characterization and in terms of his reciting the story there is and there's plenty of evidence of him taking going off of his decoration describing his emotional feelings and also frankly i mean he and matt most of the hearing he was it was answering questions from the judge that would be difficult to to to memorize what the judge is going to ask i mean he was candid with the judge answered every question that she posed to him and a candid forthright right there's nothing that says he was not responsive and so  to find otherwise credible testimony not credible thank you coun it please the court my name is to be sure roche and i represent the united states in this case this is a case about a well educated native in citizen of iran who entered the united states what's on my mind in this case at the man's a kurd and they get kicked around all over the middle east so it's plausible that they would have some political problems his father  believe the man partly because the demeanor is driven by the foreigner doubt that i had trouble when i read the i g s decision figuring out exactly what was so wrong and the more she talked the less i understood like the part about his wife's health that his wife really was in bad health he would have done this or he wouldn't have done that i couldn't understand why i couldn't understand what was the matter leaves us with the date discrepancies in our decisions don't seem to allow us to sometimes they allow us to give way to him and sometimes they don't  i don't i guess what i need you to do for me is explain exactly what it was about the story that made it so implausible i think first of all the most  fact that for one of the most important things with the fact that when after petitioner enter the united states he told the border patrol ins officer that they were entered the sole purpose quote unquote sole purpose was to enter the united states for medical treatment for her now while there may be some issues whether that's something that submittable admissible into court the most important fact about that is that he admitted that those in before the i j a he admitted those statements that he made those statements to the ins officer so there's no there's no question or controversy about the actual statements he made before the border patrol officer what's the problem with that i mean it's obviously got a sick had a valid visa to mexico he acknowledged in his testimony before the immigration judge that he knew he was entering the united states illegally and if he if his wife was so sick the immigration judge held that she found it unbelievable that basically he would be taking his wife all across the entire world essentially to solely to go to the united states solely for for any other reason other than the reason he stated which was for medical care always thought that immigration law should probably be the first place you get into that has a comparable style and walk that should be the place you have to seek asylum as opposed to the richest country but that's not the law fortunately no law but as far as going to the u s for medical treatment to me it seems plausible that he'd say that first of all the more you travel the sticker you get if you have to start with just because it's so exhausting and second there's a really good place where you need super duper medical care and you have no money because you can just walk into an emergency room and get it that's correct and i think that's what the immigration judge hint  that sole reason and the fact that he had once traveled with pneumonia from stand wall to fairbanks alaska without a stop off for medical treatment in between it is nice to get home when you're sick even though you get sick or on the way i don't understand what the implausibility i think another factor that was important for the immigration judge mentioned was the fact that once she allegedly became so sick in the united states  and that they could not afford the medical treatment she went back to to iran and if by right and the fact that she went back to iran to receive medical treatment too that's also on the record that  suspect that and i think if you ask what's the one factor that changed between the time that petitioner and his wife arrived the united states and the time that she returned to iran it was because she could not afford medical treatment has nothing to do with any sort of alleged persecution or potential fear of persecution and i know that the court also brought up issues about demeanor in the law in this year with that i mean my inclination is to treat juries are crowd judges and if they say i don't believe this person they look to me like they're lying it's good not only under a precedence we can't do it appeared to be reciting memorized facts and also the fact that the one time when he was speaking about his alleged torture i believe in the second the second arrest he was smiling the entire time and she she thought this was one of the biggest events that occurred or the biggest notice people commonly smile when they run red lights and narrowly avoided an accident seems to be stressed reaction with a lot of