is my impression that the agency may have arrived at a different conclusion had his entire testimony be distressed only be accepted as true in its entirety now the immigration judge did it right but a positive credibility finding implied negative credibly finding regarding regarding the events that the event that occurred in two thousand and nine at the at the taxi stand in some kind are can i go directly since your time is limited argue so in this case if if we accept the testimony is entirely credible then the agency should be given yet another opportunity to decide whether or not the two thousand and nine event standing alone constitutes material support because that has not been explicitly decided by the board of immigration appeals or even graciously allowed to sustain the appeal based on the two instances including the events that occurred in route for them to look at hospital and don't we lack jurisdiction to affirm on the basis or to deny the petition on the basis of the jews materiality finding because that was never reached by the b o i a that the b i am only decided the legal issue of it wouldn't matter whether it was material or nah well i think the  my understanding is that the board did reach that decision if i could be mistaken but  then again again again the core of my position is that they did not reach a decision about whether or not the two thousand and nine event standing alone is material and that's material support to terrorist organization does not include an exception for providing support under duress now i understand that you don't agree with half but  judge graber said the actual holding on a trami is exactly as george graber read there is no implied exception for individuals who assist organizations  who provide support under duress so whether as judge graber said the case was rightly or wrongly decided how is your argument that there is a dress or exception colorable i don't i don't call it a dress exception as as in terms  between a criminal act which leads to what may appear to be material support verses you know direct exception that is contemplated in that case so what is the main thing why folded that guy and an on the statute uses the word material twice in the first use of the word your argument is that it is qualitative not quantitative what does it mean when congress used the term material in the same sentence the second time and i think it's rather consistent with itself that it is not a quantitative requirement but i think it clearly is a quantitative requirement the second time because it talks about transfer of funds were other material financial benefit under your argument any financial benefit is  is material in the non quantitative sense so when it says material financial benefit the second time it's used how can that be anything other than quantitative as opposed to  the congress is trying to do there is be consistent with itself and say that material support if it were to for example drop the term material in in the second part of the statute i think there greater confusion is as to why there was some type of linguistic distinction i think respectfully your honor i read the statute i mean really statute to indicate that material support is the term of art that does not require any quantitative qualitative rather requirement whatsoever so what is the term material financial how does the term material financial benefit in the statute differ from just using the words financial benefit what  material mean there it means again any contribution of funds of any amount is immaterial and i think the supreme court made that clear in its humanitarian law well under the immigration laws exception or any place in the v i i a where they uphold that factual finding of the i j a they do not your honor so we can't reach it correct we can we couldn't affirm on that ground that is that the i j a found that this wasn't material as a fact matter because the b i a never reached it i think the b s this isn't it is clear enough that it it adopt those factual findings there was there was nothing challenged about it and therefore it is a factual finding of the case if you follow what i'm saying your honor the i j a made the finding it was not challenging therefore it is part of this administrative record had it had he challenge that finding then there may have been you know the be a may have reached it that there is no reason for the board to address every factual finding in a particular case of course and so you're saying that the petitioner did not say to the be a as a matter of fact it wasn't material board the board when it issued its decision in this case did not have the benefit of its published presidential decision that posted it but yes that decision would be entitle to no to rest offense there is a minimalist offense to those to those bars there is theoretically a the executive branch could grant him the waiver of those bars were inclined to do so in its sole un discretion however on this record and on these facts there is no basis to grant the petition for review in this case so no further questions i'd submit on the bruce agency finds that the one instance two thousand i doesn't does cost of material support and that no exceptions apply a positive her ability finding will still have a positive impact on the waiver claim that is not  after issued by the d h s so it's very important that that one issue that the issue of credibility be touched and in and educated in his favor because that is an important factor as it relates to waivers and that would mean that we were not uphold the underlying finding that your client gave you money on several occasions in two thousand fourteen thousand five you know addition that if we were to consider all of those things together would still be de minimus or do you hang your hat on whether two thousand and nine alone is to minimize the latter you understand my question the latter your honor the two thousand i standing alone that's what we're anyway that's where i'm at in my argument on so so just to be just to be clear if we were to poll the avarice credibility finding and thus conclude that it was proper to find that there were several donations at two different periods of time you're not arguing that that collective amount is to minimize i would i would still argue that but i think it would require a change in and log through published decision because i think the current law is very clear on that point from the well i know but i'm what i'm trying to get at is you you think there should be as a matter of law some de minimus exception and so that's the new legal issue but if there were a lot would you still be claiming that this collection of several which that construction wouldn't alter the outcome and that's why i'm asking the question again it's my understanding that the agency hasn't even arrived at that standard of what it is to be de minimus they haven't actually reached that point  so you know i don't know how you as the court points i don't know how you would make that determination when it comes to a number of dollars it be hard to determine what is material what's well i guess i'm just trying to clarify you are you might think yes if someone donated a million six or seven donations that occur at several different times over a period of years would feed into your view of what did to minima succession should be well yes your honor i will of course i would argue that but if i'm going to say what if i'm going to suggest a rule i don't have one i just say it's kind of like obscenity you know when you see it and so are you abandoning any of your arguments no you're on  i'm trying to focus my arguments on what i think is the strongest and and when it comes to the hospital i don't think i don't see how that can be upheld in this case because the asylum officers notes are willfully and accurate and unreliable eighty degrees and yet there's no follow up on that from the asylum officer there's even a pronoun of we gave donations in the record there's no follow up on what that pronoun means we whether or not it was paid directly by the petitioner or  on behalf of the petitioner on behalf of the group that petitioner belonged to and that's telling because when we look at the rest of the asylum officers know it's every time that there's a perceived inconsistency by the time off there's a follow up question you well your declaration says this now you're saying this but in this case it gets its name which happened so close together this allegedly consistency there's no follow up and when we i expected after seeing vs going solace that asylum office interviews would be conducted completely differently and it doesn't seem in perceived inconsistency without a recorded asylum office interview which is you know at this point they should be recorded and transcribed so that when there are mischaracterizations of the testimony it would appreciate them and we are joined for this morning session