you think apartments and the police refused to respond said well if you don't have the names of the people who fired on your house can you really call that a refusal to respond i mean if you don't have the names what exactly are they supposed to do well i you know i think responding to it to an arson is it typical involved with you basically broke up the girlfriend boyfriend relationship yeah so it sounds like it has more to do with breaking up the girlfriend boyfriend relationship and religion itself now you can argue and will argue that religion plays a role in that but religion and in generic fashion he received no abuse he is not allegedly persecution until we get to the particular episode with the social relationship that's right but it's this isn't really a social relationship i educate here about about the events that happened afterwards and about about the effect of the presumption well except for you now that i mean if you have a presumption and how you look at things you know beaten not a sister in law was beaten and the record indicates in the records that she may still be suffering permanent damage from the beating the family apartment was ransacked here not just father's apartments searched three times and his religious papers were let me just make sure i understood exactly what you said counsel you said that the issue of fast persecution was not raised on appeal to the b a i think the issue of whether or not the persecution was on account of religion is not squarely raised to the  and the notice of appeal to the b it says respondent was found credible in the evidence in the record including his testimony of the experts testimony so of respondents past persecution and welfare a person real fear  true whether or not that was an adequate opportunity it seems to me that we wouldn't topple administrative decision in a way that would make it feel like we're playing a game of gotcha with the board again the government here is asking to give the board a chance to consider whether  unconnected to activities with with mary because i think you're correct that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this had everything to do with breaking up this young couple but that random implied look this just didn't have anything to do with your religion that had to do with your acts that was not targeted at you petitioners credibility it was not something which the i j found the basis to determine that the petition was not credible to the contrary i j specifically accepted the petitioners testimony and explained why she did not credible i did not find it in other words because i just found petitioner credible i believe this court unless you are no i believe this court can't consider that and are we allowed to consider a basis for rejecting the application not relied upon by the agency question what are we supposed to do with this fact that you put in front of us in the brief that respect your honor i think you can ignore it it and then you just because it's the way the i j a did it you know it's sort of a house of cards one falls on the that you know that when you get to the point that you say that someone's not entitled to you know asylum then you say well the convention that's torture has a higher you said a couple of quick points so you know first of all to judge krauts questions there's no preservation if you will not a still same story from day one he applied for asylum almost from the minute he got in the united states and from his affidavit on the issue of future prosecution no i don't think is necessary that the judge made a credibility determination based on the facts that i walked through earlier that would relate to the multi opinion multi came out a few months after the i just decision here the i desperation as is obvious a lot of the nation there mostly don't speak to people like i think is the problem there if you move from a case for past persecution based on what happened because of the islamic group to move to a case for future persecution because of the government the second doesn't necessarily follow from the first and i don't know the independent basis for saying the government is out to get him is particularly good frankly the fact that the episode is reported would suggest you want the authorities to investigate he complained the police didn't do anything the