regime who just took over two years prior and some of his fellow teammates who were picked up and interrogated caused him to fear for his life that he was going to be arrested and he fled and came to the six it started written out those he considered sympathizers with the previous regime and when you started to detect arresting and detaining members of the boxing team other members of the team not yet arrested started  well they panicked and they thought they were next on the list and we don't have any team member yet do we who has been imprisoned and beaten for being on the team yet that's a matter of fact  and however the state department reports even the present state department report specifically states that this same regime goes after political opponents it's still going on today and just that you see the was placed on the team because of his sympathies as opposed to scholars of auction or no not at all and in fact the government's two thousand and three state country report says yes they have poor human rights practices they go after political discipline just to dissidents but i saw nothing in there that disguise the persecution of former regime members they have only also have some letters from friends on the team but neither of the letters said they were persecuted or imprisoned for being on the field the letters were written to  state we were members of the team we were harassed by the government after ten years of power they get they left all that information out however the reason they came to the united states and also apply for asylum there were granted asylum because they were all in the same boat twenty five year old at the time so it was it was quite afraid of ways of life and that's why he ran where there is not any past persecution or really only looking at future persecution are we yes that's correct and while we might because he was the incredibles yesterday as subjective fear of future persecution we're really looking for the past here are excuse me the objective  report very clearly states that serious human rights abuses still continue against all manner of people from all walks of life including those that are deemed to oppose the current government please the court christian that is going on behalf of the attorney general because mr keegan do has waived his opportunity to challenge the agency's denial of the fabrication for withholding of removal and protection under the regulations implementing the convention against torture the only is my biggest problem with the government's case it it seems to me that what i'm supposed to find his that the applicant's fear is not only subjective which i think given its credibility terminations is pretty clear easy to find but now i've got a look at his object of fear and i guess i've looked at the opinions  and i've read the old the i james opinion very carefully and i guess i'm trying to figure out what the i q a did if you look at page ten of the transcript which i think is the only place where the i g a deals with the check to fear page ten second paragraph it says the respondents fear of persecution is largely speculative based upon hearsay and the in the opinion of the court not objectively well founded that's the best i can find in all and he wrote about what he looked bad and why he said what he said so what does this mean what's he relying on here right now i cried to figure out what he was relying on when he said this how can i tell what he's relying on he doesn't all of the evidence that was given to me i'd be glad to see it because frankly i looked at that one paragraph here is largely speculative based upon hearsay in the  him have another shot let him look at the evidence and give me something upon which i can make a decision well your honor as you know of course the immigration judge benefits from the presumption that he considered all of the cardew one of his teammates on the national boxing team but aside from mr coogan his assertions are simply no evidence that mr going to would be targeted to his membership on the national boxing team i think that the immigration judge when he was speaking about hearsay had to do with mr card use letter which really mentions nothing about his interrogation or arrest your best argument but where does it say that where does the immigration judge say that says that's what he was looking at he doesn't think that's your best argument to make based on what he said you're i mean the immediate i mean if he didn't look at it and told me something about it seem like the government made a great opinion out of it when they made their break but i could find anything that the i g had done he just kind of gave me a one liner and expected me to swallow your i believe it's clear on the record however that the immigration judge considered mr going to claim the immigration judge didn't have a duty to articulate any great detail that's that's settled law and i think on this record the immigration judges i mean he came in here in eighty eight came in as the nonimmigrant visitor by for asylum they sent him a notice of intent in april of eighty nine he sent him some information they didn't do anything about it not one thing about it until june of two thousand and three then in june of two thousand and three they sent him a notice to appear but they even had to change the charges because he'd already been away from the united states on a brief trip to argentina and he was readmitted in the public interest so they had to a man the notice to appear now they're saying he's present in the unit united states with valid ballot visa or entry document so i guess again i can understand my good colleagues questions about past persecution i don't think there's anything in there my worry is is there anything in the i d f decision about object to fear of future persecution other than that one line and if you point me to it i'm willing to be convinced but i can't find i don't say very good i'm from idaho emmel vs i s i and mob cissie inverses ashcroft where we stay we also follow that up include reverses ashcroft saying we've long held that the  abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions we explain that conclusory statements are insufficient and the vi must provide an don't have the facts in the record as to why mr cardew was arrested or other members of the team that were detained and questions we only know that mr cahoon did not wait to be arrested and questioned before he fled