three distinct components with three different standards of review first with respect to findings of fact by statute twelve fifty two before b as in boy we  has tried to hypnotize all of us into believing that it covers everything but it only covers findings of fact the second component is conclusions of law when an i j pulls the switch or doesn't pull the switch to label that conclusion of law is reviewed by this court in overall all the circuits agree on that third if the judge says i'm pulling this which you are eligible for granted asylum then there is the discretionary decision to grant or not grant asylum and that is governed by statute the review of that decision twelve if you two before d as in david so we have the three components of three different standards are review review i believe that our task here today is to focus on the second component which i agree with the factual record is nothing i can say about the facts they are what they are but with respect to the i g decision to pull the switch to grant asylum or not that is really review de novo seconds with respect to internal relocation here legitimate investigation but i don't i'm not going to call it persecution so when the judge made that labeling not persecution not asylum he was drawing legal conclusions that this  court review to novel and that that's what we're here about with respect to that part of the asylum claim the second part of it is the internal relocation issue whether the the judge was right or wrong is england international just on a question of sort of regulations yes or if there is a finding of past persecution or if we hold that there shouldn't be a finding of past person who has the burden of proof to show ability or inability to relocate within the country is that the government's burden of proof at that point to man from el salvador who was afraid of paramilitary death squads no where in that case did the b i say well you should have tried to hide out in some just squads it simply wasn't an issue and the reason is i believe that at that time in one thousand nine hundred this regulation didn't exist nothing in the statute talked about in terms of relocation and as i mentioned in briefs there is no statutory constitutional or international law requirement talking about internal safehaven internal relocation it's purely a creation of this regulation and the development of case law in my opinion in an effort to narrow the scope of who may be granted asylum the government is looking for ways to reduce the number of asylum i'll reserve the rest of my time he did not what he said was what he said was i don't i mean this court this court's jurisprudence says that unless the i g makes a specific adverse credibility finding then then you have to assume that what he says is true and so relocation question well in the first responder question is first of all that wasn't raised by the petitioner and so i would submit that that issue is that what you mean what was the question of whether he established past persecution don't talk about it with respect to past persecution happy to brief that for the for the court but that is that is the way it works that he will have a well founded fear of presumption of a well founded fear if he shows it was persecuted in the past and so in a case like this where he's being removed to a immigration judge assumed for purposes of making this decision because the immigration judge found discretionary only in that case it was that easy it was an easy answer and that is he cannot show that the harm that he could have any trouble relocating in ethiopia and so the judge said it doesn't the judge is the sense you think it doesn't matter if you are persecuted in the past you can relocate and this court's precedents are not to the contrary  read deals with a situation where the national government has been the persecutor this is the very clear is the case that i think could exist that this is not something that the national government was behind this petition or at record one fifty two one fifty three when explaining how he came the judge was concerned that he came to the united states to participate in an aids conference selected by the national government he says quote the organizations sent me here and had no idea that i had some problems i had problems in associate with the local government not with the national government i don't believe they knew what was happening this petitioner who claims to fear have indicated that he could easily relocate even if he is a member of the a p o that the state department corset record to go to indicate there is no violence towards membership numbers of the a p o as long as they renounce violen never even mentioned to the government the federal government the national government according to the evidence we have that he has had a problem in this town of eight thousand people he has not even chosen to live in that town he was sent there by the national health ministry after he finished his residency in medical school and he talked at length about how this town differed from the town he was actually from and so this is the titian who says i'm not even brought it to their attention now he says he wa work at all there was no way he could support himself at all where other people were able to do so but i would i would notify if i could just have a couple more moments but this this petitioner says he was detained for twenty one day and over a period of several years he's never mentioned his detentions or beatings to the government the health ministry that sent him to this town and there's no evidence that he requested a transfer anywhere else i would i would submit that by the government he claims would persecute him and he attended a conference and then stayed rather than returning to his country with the valuable and with the valuable medical information that that he would have going at this at this medical aids proven something that's right your honor i think it's abundantly clear on the record and there couldn't be a clear expression its own testimony i only have problems in the small town that's about three hundred miles away from the town i live my whole life than i would also if i have just one more claims in his motion to the board that he later claims that his mother was forcibly removed from ethiopia eritrea however he claims that this happened at a date that him but i think with very good reason thank you thank you very much you've got some time left in the government ran over so let's hear what you have to say thank you or two points a few of us are over fifty and can remember when it was common for the talent government paramilitary desk might have or might not have had some linkage to the government it wasn't the government it wasn't the military and it wasn't in any particular  persecution has been made out it then becomes the government's burden to show that he cannot relocate now burton here is knocking burden of going forward it's right of burden of proof and the government can sustain its burden by whatever the evidence is in the record including evidence that comes out on testimony why has the government not satisfied that burden of proof maybe i'm misunderstanding the the regulation but as i read the regulation if the persecution is at the hands of the government or a government agent the the applicant need not relocate that burnished then i then i stand corrected and it might be difficult for this petitioner to meet that standard but i think i might have to so you have an argument as to why