because that decision deferred almost entirely in its reasoning to the decision of the immigration judge it's the decision of the immigration judge to which i would direct my argument the first question here is whether every burstall of the credibility court has said that in circumstances where the court is reviewing questions of law in conjunction with questions of fact that this is anything that is simply a question of fact or know your honor because the question of law is whether the judge abused her discretion in finding that the credibility of this respondent was in finding that there's that the that her paul was not credible she did this very purpose they knew exactly what was happening during that time period so she could have gone and done her own investigation put on her own things so i would argue that she expected the government investigation to corroborate her testimony the fact that it came up with an alternate but if she didn't apply timely then she didn't apply timely and she's now well i would argue that the court is required to consider credible testimony as evidence and the court and and also why would they be doing that so then she changed her story to this other thing and another the notion was that she was sort of conveniently changing her story because the first one didn't make any sense given the dates and given her story about what the brother find evidence the court was concerned with her change of testimony i would argue that her change of testimony to explain the existence of a very important piece of evidence again is not  it's not a proper basis for an adverse credibility finding given the fact that she she testified consistently with her her application consistently with the ten bar claim the one your bar bars review of the judge's factual determination that she was untimely there's any questions on that i'll be happy to address it but give me the two dates one date the date that she entered on the record in their car and you know this is true there's no explanation but these manifest they come in uniformly have people coming in last name first and then when you get to the tower market of credibility for example of a credibility decision by the immigration judge than there would be in a criminal case of a credibility of the credibility of a witness the court theoretically has the power eight lies that didn't go to the heart of the matter the court can look at that in the context of the overall case what this court i believe is hell is that you can't just b supposedly was her brother and supposedly showed his membership in the this political organization and what the record shows was which was that she had told the if she changed the story in the direction of saying that it was just not that they went and got it after she left then i don't see any advantage to her to changing the story in that direction but to change her in the other  one story too she testified that her brother had given her given the card to her mother and later her mother found the card lying at home may not be so inconsistent in itself but it is inconsistent with the first story that's your point right that's correct and there's a question about the immigration judge view as to whether or not she was credible as a whole  n judge did not believe her or her testimony well he's got he's got to say more than i don't believe exactly and the immigration judge found it significant that you that she was well i think it the answer is they certainly could if i said i got a document from san francisco three years ago or no i found it in the street it may raise the question of where did this document come from here we have when she was challenged on this basis at the he aring her response was to say that she was mistranslated by the by the interpreter and the hearing went on to bring in the interpreter of see if there was evidence of mistranslations and last thing i will say well is that if the court does find that there is a problem with the credibility determination by the board the appropriate remedy of course on the withholding would mean that her parents found it at home and sent it to her right not that it was a common document that she would see on a day to day basis that the home in other words she called her parents she asked them to send her evidence and they sent her not only this card but a slew of affidavits which are also considered as evidence perhaps with diminished weight that the brother was a member of the party and that while she and her brother was persecuted by indian asked i don't want to let go of the one year issue thank you your honor for giving these an extra time i would still argue that because it does not go to the heart of the claim of of the persecution that if credibility