i mean aren't we in a situation where i mean what authority do you have for the proposition that evidence submitted by a party should be disregarded or this actually stated he really was very surprised and he stated that they were in correct and and what i would like to point out around by that are is the jail allowed to make it for an inference is now the idea is different is allowed to make different inferences but what i'm saying is that mr group that was not present to testify we could ask him where he got his information how or where he got his info was an affidavit form was it not yes it was competent out it was submitted by your client contradicting his own testimony you see that sounds like a basis to have a credibility problem with your client's case yes and i think that that's why the polygraph is going point in this case the polygraph that's not newly discovered that could have been done to get anywhere the you know this is not a game of do overs that go on forever he could have submitted himself to the polygraph earlier but its read was not apparent until after he was time incredible because we would argue that he was actually consistent the two inconsistencies that he actually found were not really inconsistency i mean one was regarding dates immigration judge wanted an exact date and he said he could not recall an exact date and he tried he tried three times to give an exact date and he really couldn't remember whether inconsistency was regarding whether or not he the militants had actually said something while shooting at his i think at his home and he initially stated that he they did say something and then stated that they didn't say anything so it's the other way around and that's why it's more significant and having sat in a lot of trials this is a scene that is played out with some degree of frequency where he's asked if they said anything and he said no they didn't say anything at which point it dawns on him that he needs to that's not very helpful to his case he then says oh yes they did say something they said this is the h so goes from no this has nothing to then having said something which would give a basis to support his claim for religious persecution but immediately after that he was asked again so did they say something or not and he said no they didn't say anything immediately after that i don't think he understood what you know if you very much i don't think he was able to express himself very well well look in looking at this record it seemed to me that at least with respect to what happened on june thirtieth one thousand nine hundred nine and there was one statement that he wasn't injured and another that he was there was then a question what did the attack began with gunfire or with the beating of his father was his father inside the house was the outside the house were there statements about the near in car or weren't there you know i t's i don't know what the i c was supposed to think that point how could the i j a believe it let's put it this way the i j a has the discretion to make a determination of credibility and it seems to me under with that with that evidence which goes to the heart of the claim that alone is enough to question yes yes i did face or dismissed on these documents and again these documents are provided by third party individuals that were not contacted by mr court all directly who had no personal knowledge about what actually happened actually the only person with personal knowledge was the father and his call was did corroborate his his claim i don't want to i don't want to beat a dead bunch of documents to your clients but it isn't that's that's kind of a representation that i stand behind these these i understand if somebody found them at the library it would be a different question  them i guess the only explanation that i would have is that at this hearing it was clear that he didn't know what the content of those affidavits were and he did try to explain why they were different than what he was and so i was just he was putting garbage and to support his case he didn't even know what was in it well then why did he put it in and of course he knew what was in it i mean come on i don't believe that he didn't when he was found on the ground and just didn't read them and put them in evidence i think that he and his attorney submitted them i think that's what have where did it where did he get to where did he get it when he had it in the attorney he got him from his father who was the person who actually obtained them in india be nice of that have been developed in court i had no up no knowledge of the information i put in in favor of my case by affidavit form that is true and he was never asked the question so we we would now all he said was the guy was wrong he said the guy was wrong right but when he was asked well didn't you provide these documents he really didn't have an answer but you see again the question is whether there's substantial evidence to support credible damage we don't make it over again we just look to see if there's substantial if you're going to say you know what we put them there and now a ninth circuit they are helpful to us so consider them or they weren't helpful to us to ignore them i mean is that the rule because i think that mr gold should have been asked additional questions regarding the affidavits because they actually were significant was asked questions about the affidavits and he says they were wrong that's his view that's his version how he received that he was not asked specifically about that content but each and every document he said yes my father sent it to me these were not sent directly to a lawyer these were not sent through anyone else the alien asked his father to obtain these documents in support of his application and he received those documents and then submitted them to the immigration point you're suggesting that perhaps he read them before he submitted i'm saying it's reasonable to say that he did it certainly doesn't compel a conclusion that he did not the immigration judge is adverse credibility finding it quite clear in this case she found him to have exaggerated his claims was quite displeased with his demeanor again also demeanor as being reviewed and of substantial evidence standard and that it conflicted with the test the documents really conflicted in significant ways in fact i believe the petitioners on brief he says he could have taken the polygraph during the time his case was pending before the immigration judge these things could have been introduced he did not they do not meet the standard under far one zero zero three point t think what is the government's position with respect to the use of the polygraph and credibility issues and immigration cases is the one i don't know if i would not speak for the government if you'd like the twenty chain letter on that issue i'd be happy to provide one with respect to the context of the motion to reopen obviously a polygraph test admitted that's clearly not new evidence after the finder of fact who was in the best position to judge the credibility of an alien we would probably argue that it wouldn't trump it it least are there any cases yet heard of properly come to our attention where somebody shows up at the initial hearing with the immigration judge with a polygraph and a hand i haven't been able to find any like your honor i'm not aware of any all the sudden we're being flooded with this issue