examination or cross examination or redirect examination but it was it's submitted only moments before closing arguments were except that this is critical exhibit number three a later became one of the reasons that the immigration judge found that there was an adver advised of a different documents are going to be referred to possibly other problem in this case arises when there is no direct examination no cross examination no direct examination by the immigration judge and no notice at all that there's any issues that they're not going to believe the testimony of the witness because the oral testimony is contradicted by the contents of documents that the with this prepared out of court well in the context of a civil trial it may be a little different but in the context of the immigration proceeding itself in the context of the immigration proceedings as they're running from the immigration court in the executive office of immigration review are still several that's correct your honor i mean are you arguing that of immigration judge can never testimony of a petitioner based upon a prior inconsistent written statement by that particular and west the petitioner is given an opportunity and confronted with that inconsistent statement witness is credible and i don't see how that is any different from the fact finder in a normal civil trial or in a criminal trial trying to determine whether somebody could justify the girls was telling the truth or  issues based upon what she had seen in the record on these prior written statements and then check them off as being inconsistent with the testimony without ever giving the commissioner an opportunity to reasonably explain of proceedings of the one zero nine states ms rolls to the judge no other questions your honor this is after the immigration judge asked for closing arguments but there is i do have one other matter in regards to the evidence i believe we have but my understanding is the attachment the declaration attached to the second i five eighty nine was not in the court's record that there was no indication at all during this closely that there was anything in exhibit number three and that immigration judge specifically found certain parts of the law certain parts of the petitioners testimony was credible in terms of the fact that he had served in the army because the crux of his claim was that he addressing as i was listening to the cases earlier that then there's obviously of a large flux of these documents being filed our office looked at each one and does conduct a separate claim however the sort of other criminal and elian is not currently detained either it's not only me and i guess the first list for deportation for several reasons some are one it could be because the service doesn't know where this person is number two this could eighteen months to get ready or fifty six thousand case backlog he did not have in his pocket an army of department immigration lawyers and paralegals to process all the appeals that we get is that what happened so you're know and you don't have an administrative record when the petitioners lawyer files the most you first day so you can't respond to it because you couldn't say anything wrong and that that's what happens in cases such as this when it's an asylum case and it's not a criminal alien and we don't have the record we can't respond if it's a criminal alien we tend to get as many documents as we can within the time that is allowed so that we can not a criminal not and then we don't have the documents and we don't have really the resources to focus on a case like that as opposed to another case where we could get attempts making attempts to get the documents and file or spots within the time that the court asking for the strength every time to respond so that you can get the record so you have been getting the records and then actually filing a response in this case that was a no response well make any finding regarding whether there was a well founded fear of future persecution