from this record one of the many grounds as the government in fact they've done a fight in their brief that someone may have doubted the petitioners testimony we don't know in fact which ground this immigration judge may have found their testimony if in fact he doubted it at all all we know from this page of the administrative record which contains the entirety of this whole thing is that he doubted their ability to provide evidence that he thought should have been provided and under this circuit's rule that is simply not enough now the government has the cia cannot require an alien who has been found to be credible who need an additional burden of proof signaling corroborating evidence in order to carry their burden of proof now that's not the case here because the first finding anything about credibility that has to go with whether he's established that he doesn't have any corroborating evidence so let's not allied with the mitchell i accept your candor on how  thought he made a gesture where he took his response claim frankly is based upon his claim that the business that exists was a family owned business and that he on weekends would travel by plane to the southern island of mindanao after evidence that such evidence would be unavailable and again if that's the case the question that he has to present any evidence at all well i think my way of looking at this was why can't at here is feed documentation in the record and looking at documentation in order to make my credibility find that's what this person says second sentence responded is presented absolutely no evidence i e no documentation  there's no persuasive evidence in the record i e the credible evidence that he's been talking about there's nothing to demonstrate that there's any connection here then and this  a does or doesn't exist he's talking rather fairly and squarely i think he's talking about the failure of this man to come forward and put forward the business documents something in addition to his testimony and he's faking the question till he makes a finding that he doesn't find him credible period he doesn't have any of the regulation which uses the cement to terminate an immigration judge made consider documents documentary evidence now the government doesn't argue on it we made this clear on our previous government doesn't argue that in all at you know i didn't realize that you are still speaking it is well established in the circuit that the b r a may not require independent corroborative evidence from an asylum applicant who testifies credibility and support of the application testimony and decide that that testimony is not persuade because he doesn't find the testimony credible then additional cooperation cannot be required additional documentation cannot be required after next point if an alien comes down to immigration court and testify in the immigration explicit finding a specific statement by the petitioner is not credible we are required to accept her testimony as true so we're talking about an however i do think that lack of cooperation can be a specific reason and i think that that's what the my go to a different to a different point this is where i thought the government might be going with that paragraph on page thirty three even if we were to grant no express credibility finding medora where the i j a and the i had already found able to be credible there's no case that's comparable to this case where the government is arguing that there was a negative credibility finding that was find that testimony credible then the i j a is going to resort to a requirement of corroborative evidence well the reason that the government was and what is wrong with  what's wrong with that is that you can have a situation such as this one where you have an alien who comes into this country illegally has absolutely no documentation we don't have a clue who this person  could have a person who could sneak across the border into this country and then destroy every document that would identify them if they had them then come in immigration court and tell a totally phony story they had no internal contradiction but the government has two ways of going there one they can play the i can say i don't believe you your eyes are shifting you're you're you're you're nervous as you as you tell me that that your name is john smith and i don't believe that your name is john smith i think so many witnesses on the stand you're looking furtively are looking to counsel for support i don't believe you or the government can say you know something you haven't presented sufficient held that any alien looking away with shifting eyes and so forth might be a cultural difference and i just cannot assume that that indicates dishonesty also the fact that testimony has to be taken is had to make record or fail to make record see it absolutely appropriate for an i j to put on the record as long as not being abusive not using to intimidate the  of verbal description or description for the record so we can understand the context so i don't have any problem with that but what i am trying to understand is how you how the person would have no documents and wouldn't in the course of that examination the i j a be able to develop as they would for any part of the examination specific and cogent reasons to disbelieve the explanation as course fairly well aware of the large number of sound claims that are made and in addition there's confidentiality requirements for asylum cases our government by regulation has to make sure that sound claims are kept confidential we can't just walk over to continuance this is this is the family that the claim to be the thank you very prominent in the philippines apparently has family here in the united states didn't offer any family any family witnesses who could come forward and say gee we know of the circumstances you know let us let  court finds that the immigration judge did not make an express credibility finding in this case then i don't court's precedents the court would say that his testimony must be treated as for true the court within reason and you know both sides agreed that the court then wouldn't be required to remain and to look at whether he had met his current approved which would be such things as was he persecuted on account of one of the five grand just could he safely have the letter from the political chief in a political party that's been out of existence for you couple of years and those are circulating around for a while but they were getting a little far away from the record in this case but  appear that all of this these failings of the record are part of the record maybe i'm wrong about that but all your concerns about the i j was concerned he didn't have a passport didn't have this didn't have that the th it basically what it comes down to is this cryptic statement of the flight across the philippines and that he hasn't demonstrated why he doesn't have any corroborating evidence but he goes