that the petitioner as a consequence of immigration judge apparently had some doubt about the credibility of clients testimony and accepted the eighty four and eighty eight arrests because there was no other witness yes that's true but did not accept the earlier and was questioning the credibility of your client and then as i understand the eighty eight rest finally came to trial and your client was exonerated and the judge the india judge gave quite a tongue lashing to the prosecution saying there was nothing to this case and yet yesterday or unfortunately the country conditions support that sometimes they did judicial system india work sometimes it doesn't but that does not insulate someone from persecution because much of the actions right the indian government are extradition will so the fact that someone may have been exonerated five years later after they broke his collarbone issue that seems to be difficult for you is that india's a terribly big country and the immigration judge felt based upon the change of country conditions there are places in india where your client can settle relocation so both of those representation respondents are incorrect there is no finding with respect to country conditions he made a determination that your client could by the court action the lapse in the law and continued bill ability to live in his home village and except as he describes these later events which i don't believe you is whether or not the court applied the proper burdens of proof with respect to whether or not there's been either a fundamental change in circumstances and whether there has been of finding  that he just cannot remember which took place in so but the point of that is if one reads the immigration judge's decision that the immigration judge didn't see that those that he didn't the morning your honour's please the court robin merryweather representing the respondent the attorney general the rulings below should be affirmed for three reasons first conditions in india change this plane and therefore supports the i first credibility ruling finally with respect to the denial by the board of the motion to remain and to submit additional evidence there is no evidence in the record that that perspective witness mr jotter scene was unavailable for the one thousand nine hundred nine hearing and his work conflict for the two thousand hearing could have been overcome either or requesting permission is that medicine testimony in writing counsel for petitioner has suggested that the government did not meet its burden of showing change conditions but the record contradicts those allegations the first the immigration judge did reference the change conditions on page one twenty five of the administrative record not only and other portions of the immigration judge discussed it but on page one twenty five it's presley used the phrase change in conditions let me ask a question i may be two and i know our time is short the immigration judge accepted two of the arrests because of witness apparently rejecting the rest those two arrests i assume triggered in the mind of the immigration judge that there's a problem and i had understood and i'm from my reading of the record that the immigration judge then indicated that and found that there was change country conditions which rebutted his fear of future persecution if you accept the first truth except it is persecution the burden shift and the government has to come up with something else and i said i understand the i j a that said the something else was changed country conditions you have a story klein says it never happened that wasn't in the case at all i got from your brief that it was maybe you could maybe you could explain yes yes your honor we did the burden shifted to us to rebut by showing changed conditions the immigration judge as i read the opinion found that we had established that and that's reflected in the decision and to provide your honor with an account of some of those conditions that were introduced first as the i j a referenced the petitioner was acquitted and one nine hundred ninety three and in the transcript of the indian court independent speak state or supporting militancy the state department reports were all introduced into the record and that's reflected in the transcript those reports established other changes in the conditions including the organization that petitioner was a member of the all india seek student federation no longer did not in and of itself lead to persecution or arrest that's like you just recently maybe you could be i know you you got a line of thinking if  is the change country conditions which is based upon your argument is that change country conditions dealing with there's no longer a threat in the home town of where the petitioner lives or is it the change country conditions of throughout all of them or is it that he can go live someplace else from india without a threat what is that my understanding is that there's evidence in the record for all three of those propositions that i don't believe the immigration judge addressed the relocation issue although the country reports and the departed by the department of state what it rests that but that the the i'm gratian judge didn't even have to get to the relocation issue because it was clear that in the state of punjab where the petitioner resided speaks and particular says is the country report that you're referring to the one nine hundred ninety eight state department report there department report and that appears on approximately i believe it starts on page three sixty nine of the record and runs through page three seventy three or three seventy four and that addresses the timing of the violence  longer being implemented and to the extent it is just backlog of cases and so there is there is the report saying there's been a change entry conditions specifically in this area specifically doing with a terrorist attack is that the one you're referring no your honor although that that is also in multiple reports to reference i want to you referring to i'm referring to the nine hundred ninety substantial evidence standard to be if there's evidence in the record as a whole that supports the ruling and here the ruling is that conditions changed that the court can look to that evidence in the record and so here i would submit that the specific portions of the record that the i j a referred to do provide the evidence to support his ruling however there's also additional record evidence and which was the point that i was making which corroborates that the  finding and and for that i found that there were minimal chances that the petitioner would be arrested again then the burden then shifted to the petitioner to provide credible testimony that he had a reasonable the appeal to the board argued that the finding of change conditions was not supported yes and then we have another one of these  adopt the decision of the i j a without addressing so basically is it your view that this all comes down to the the  if if if he had believed that there were arrests even after these changes he would have found that there that there were no change conditions is that how you understand this  but i would submit that the record evidence the fact that he was acquitted and the reference in that hearing to there not being any prior arrests and the state department reports which means that made it in which the i g except it would have still provided substantial record evidence to to find that there that conditions had changed you don't really have to go there that if you if if the credibility determination was  have changed significantly with respect to the response position in india and dismissal of those two proceedings against the respondent now that's the only thing i thought about changing conditions and i'm not sure what the i j a meant what is your position of what we should determine the i j a meant by that statement i would submit that the i j a meant that conditions in the country had changed such that the petitioner had no reasonable fear that he would be arrested and persecuted if you return to conditions have changed over all of them in his home town against him that the t errorist act has been really really had been removed what the terror terror and the terrorist act had lapsed he was able to get due process and be acquitted of the crime and that department reports introduced into evidence they were your honor and that's reflected near the beginning of the hearing transcripts there's a reference to the i believe it's the one thousand nine hundred nine transcript it states that the been introduced as evidence and accepted into the on page one thirty four of the record the court says i've received the department of state comments on country conditions in june one nine hundred ninety six with the july nine hundred ninety seven a dent i mean that's the a denim i was referring to earlier this morning i have although ninety ninety eight has i believe ninety nine appears on the bottom of the page but it covers the period of one thousand nine hundred eighty ok thank you thank you  after here when he didn't appear at that time your honor there was no motion for a continuance because i think i would not be twenty at that hearing but the reasoning would be that they don't know why he didn't appear so at that point critical and again i began with that mr singh was not required to provide any more corroborating evidence at that point but if that corroborating evidence was so critical then it would have been the proper thing to do in the exercise