good morning good morning they please the court joseph going for petitioner the two issues present presented here this morning are rather whether substantial evidence supports the edges finding that petitioners claim are did not rise to the level of persecution and if it is determined that he has suffered past persecution and whether the i g is finding that petitioner and could safely and reasonably relocate under the a well founded fear presumption has been rebutted with respect to the first issue i would submit that the two attacks that the petitioner suffered at the hands of non state actor or opposition party people did in fact rise to the love of persecution i believe the first attack after being confronted and threatened  to join the opposition party he refused he was kicked and punched in the stomach for five to seven minutes the second attack presumed it mentally was more serious he was attacked with baseball bats and i believe hockey sticks and was beaten quite severely the i j a perfunctorily discounted the severity the harman and just and concluded that there was no  your case different from pursuing i want you to i understand he got her to understand that but we've said that these minor types of things which they persist to pieces minor tribes things don't measure up to what is needed for condition for which you think you know i have a right yes i would submit that on a cumulative basis the combination of the threats and the point of  visits the house by the persecutors both before he left india after he left india and the physical harm that he suffered on a cumulative basis would rise to the level persecution  distinguishes this particular case from the matter if we assume that he does have harm that rises to the level of persecution if i might refer scenario when in fact this is not the situation at least in the instant case that india is a big country and there's a lot of hindus all over india yes granted that india is a large country and whether petitioners could safely reus we relocate the individualized analysis under singhvi what occurred does not take into account non state actors as the persecutor especially if petitioner is claiming that he would continue to advocate for the man party if he had to return to india is he claiming that well that was not inquired into at the i j a love you that that is actually one of the issues i wanted to ask you about because in the sing the whittaker case that seemed to be a big issue yes that he would he affirmatively was going to go back to india and advocate for the man party but we don't have that testimony here correct no we don't your honor and i would submit th venture remand would be appropriate in this case for fact finding in the first instance nobody inquired of petitioner whether he would continue to advocate for his party if he had to return and if we have non state actors his persecutors singhvi what occurs seems to was confined to police pursuing him or whether he feared the police and then the i j a use that opportunity if you will to develop the record that whatever country articles were submitted as part of this case that polices persecutor rebutted the presumption of any well founded fear that petition may have again i would submit that the i g soley focused on lisa's persecutor scenario and didn't factor in non state actors as persecutors so a remain would be instructive to further develop the record as to what the current country conditions are and the prevalence of these non state actors throughout the country of india and whether it's just you could safely reasonably relocate either to a general area or to a specific area and not face harm or threats of harm well his specific testimony was that if he moved to another place he'd have to get a home and they want some id to prove who he was and then that somehow that information would get all the way back to his hometown and the police would then come and get after him  the the the record shows that that's the only who would occur for the big actors and he admittedly is just a small part of this man act and party so why hasn't he why hasn't isn't his proof that he admits that he is an insignificant person in the act and the record that shows they're only after the big people who may be terrorists why doesn't that show that he can get to parts of india and still be safe i was in your honor that the record is not developed unfortunately and maybe every man is appropriate in this instance because again that would focus on the police searching for him or he fears police even if his fear is objectively reasonable that he fears the police that the focus should not be  be on his attackers the non state actors who the opposition party able he was congress party the congress party all across and they're every one of them or involved in this client had a chance to put that on it was it wasn't done it's not in the record yet a very opportunity to do it but it seems just for the face of this is going to be a tough one to do they've even had hindus prime ministers  it's so it is so mind boggling that a major party is out to get a person like your client i'm not saying that it couldn't happen i'm just saying from the record it just doesn't seem logical well if the record is remanded and no no not me mended the record that we have now you have the burden of proof and the record we have now shows seems to me that record does not reflect whether or not he has a fear of the opposition party harming him if he had to go back to india but again it wasn't in court as he was represented by counsel he was right i mean that is sort of the damned if you do damned if you don't situation sometimes you know the visuals are better without counsel but he did he did have a counsel there and then actually it seemed like the judge took care to ask him very specifically about his concerns about moving back which judge was just referred to so it would be hard pressed in this situation to say he didn't have a chance to explain i'm just wondering what the basis for we men would be if we were to follow your recommendation i would submit simply that if it wasn't inquired into at the lower level perhaps to further develop the the regular given opportunities of opportunity for petitioner to further develop the record as  establish past persecution and a well founded fear of future persecution and the court finds a record does not compel a conclusion contrary to that finding and that's the end of the case you don't have to reach the alternative solution about relocation starting with that first finding about past hit on the back with a hockey stick and of baseball bat and he required no significant medical treatment though he stated he couldn't eat for a week because of the injury to his jaw he did not state that he had any significant medical treatment in either incident and that was a bit later on he said he saw a congress party member flash a gun at him a year later but that was a sum total of his mistreatment this case i think will be as well as could differ if very recently falls under cases like for sod that the courts found not to constitute past persecution was not to compel that conclusion so it was odd that the board sided goo which is the chinese individual who would kind of been hit by a strap and didn't seem to have any relationship to the situation here which included two incidents plus the threats i think is a good example because it that's the case it goes through different cases the board their court is found were not found it explains how and for sod there was no past persecution how another case well i believe they did find past persecution so it's using as an example to compare and contrast what has previously been found a concept past persecution so in the case for example it was much more severe he was detained twice the first time for a day and a half and he was beaten in his hand again for fifteen days where he was hit with a lecture baton fully passed out or shocked until he passed out he was tied to a chair and was beaten with sticks and he was fired from his job and that the court explained concerts past persecution on the other hand for sod were used to tame him for a few hours he was beaten and interrogated that is not to tell the conclusion that constituted past persecution which is an extreme concept does not include every mistreatment that society deems reprehensible and this case for both altercations were over in a matter of show in order to how much has to be shown to see whether or not he can safely relocate and he says in the case which binds us and i'd like to have your response to this relocation analysis consists of two steps one whether the applicant could relocate safely and two whether it would be reasonable to require the applicant to do so so that's our new test so could you specifically address those two of those two questions so you never challenge the reasonableness which typically goes the argument is that i find a job there how could i live there but what  nationwide threat to someone when it's the government you presume a nation wide threat rever they can relocate in this case the congress party ranks which is not always the government that's the difference i believe it's not always the government so the state department reporting the record odd circumstance this is an individual credible where the police told him well why don't you just join the congress party which is hardly a solution a long term solution but otherwise outside of the  no indication the police would be unwilling or unable to protect him in those locations either especially the congress party may or may not be in powder and power and may or not have the political will or ability to seek out and target six separatists this also goes with the back information which shows that there is no interest in targeting c except just outside of the punjab unless there are high ranking militants or on parole or some other criminal background that that was demonstrated in the hearing was there any opposition evidence to that that they're really only interested in high ranking people of the men party that is anybody has whether it's police or congress party whatever it's only those high ranking people who would draw the attention of those who would want to perhaps do them harm there's no evidence besides showing that yes they only would perhaps we should know ranking official that's the report from the australian government in this case what how would what was his position did he have an official position i didn't find anything in the record on are rents an apartment and the landlord will take by the report my identity to the police and the police report my identity the congress party yeah which is a chance oppositions to begin with because you don't explain why the landlord would tell the police and why the police and some other states that's not influenced by the congress party would tell the congress party and particularly where the back and shows that police don't care about anybody unless you're a high ranking militant and and but there's nothing in the record that think he would call up the local party and tell them about this person is nothing like that and there's also again the same part of court which shows that the local party may not have any power it's a democracy the congress party might not be the government relocation it just has to be outside the punjab for these purposes do they have a particular state in mind or a particular community in mind that ever comes up for example it's clear that there are many parts of the new where the majority are hindus reasonableness whether he could more reasonably live in that area was never challenge that part of the equation is only challenge whether it's safe for him to relocate so that's the second alternative finding which court doesn't have to reach but agrees the record not compel the conclusion was past persecution or well founded fear of future persecution this case but i think the record supports both of these findings is it your position that being general this way meets the obligation  case i am not sure what i'm trying to figure out my own mind what is the what is they have to prove to show that he can properly relocate do they have to get some specific area or or as you see it do they have to demonstrate a generality i think this thing case answer that said it can be more general outside the punjab was the answer in saying they found sufficient and in that case as long as it's safe so long as you can show the police the congress party would have no interest or reach or ability to get outside of the bunch of there's nothing in the record that i found the thought that was decided whether could be general or whether it had to be a specific i want to go to the city no that's not on the record and if the record indicate he did he in the record say where he wants to go it did not say just said rever i go i'm going to be armed a general  just briefly referring to seeing the would occur again it's instructive that in the decision the the court held that a remained was proper and the court decided that the boarded erred in failing to analyze whether petitioner would be substantially safer in a new location if you were to continue expressing his political opinion and in the summary of the testimony the court reference that the fisher testified that it would not be possible for him to live outside the punjab in india because as a man party member he feared the police so i don't believe even in this case and singh be whatever that it was fully developed whether or not he would continue to advocate for the party and how he would so advocate and in seeing what occur every man was appropriate i would submit that every man is appropriate in this case thank you thank you thank you both for the argument this morning the case just argued is submitted united states versus mcneil is submitted in the briefs well next year argument and versus new field