because the immigration judge in this case the not make the determination that the applicant must abide cross breeding evidence and failed to do so the statute does not mandate that an applicant must like robert e evidence or that immigration fact to determine if an applicant should provide evidence to corroborate the credible testimony congress understood that applicants not have evidence to corroborate their otherwise credible testimony which testimony and statement and twenty two dollars the immigration judge found that the major government has the capability and inclination to punish mr is it in my own evidence my record that shows that the government harm supporters of the  support a grant of asylum in order to understand the implications of your position and it seems that you may be saying that it's an across the board rule it's not particularize to this certain person there's nothing about the record that shows there after this particular person just the mere fact that he has a view about the biafran people and he puts it on facebook entitles hi the stand up that's the implication of your position that anybody who does that would be entitled to the same result or whether they're asked to be more particular used evidence about the individual healing well and i don't think that's what the regulation proof for asylum and the record does not compel reversal of the term nation the boy probably found the petitioner did not demonstrate a particular life threat of persecution in light of the large number and proby offer supporters in nigeria th determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is dispositive of this petition he did not demonstrate that anyone in the nigerian government is aware of his beliefs or has threatened to harm him or that he will be singled out for persecution  within the board's to novo review authority to determine if an applicant has met the legal requirements of his claim the applicant must provide evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that he will be singled out individually for persecution or he can establish that there's a pattern of practice but in this case they have waived that claim by not raising it in their brief to this court and so that we don't we don't have the pattern practice i her pattern or practice claim you do see that those words but it would appear from her finding she says the nigerian government has the capability and the inclination to punish the writes a finding that there was an inclination to punish single him out so to speak or you think that's a when you think that i mean it seems to be that based on her other she's her country conditions evidence she's relying on is more general i will say that it has mainly involved a group called the indigenous peoples of the africa which petitioner hasn't even shown that he is a member of and these are people that are participating in demonstrations and protests and marches in nigeria and they're the ones who are arrested and and mistreated by the nigerian government that's ok point they did the board at any point insist upon further corroboration now they're not making that finding what they're doing is they're saying looking at the record that we have for the immigration judge and the cooperation that he did this is not sufficient to meet his burden of proof but the immigration judge made a factual finding based on the testimony of the alien and the mother's affidavit and said out find such and such that's board seems to think that that they're not going to give and this could be why there might be a little arab with a proper stare or view the board so that there is no objective evidence of the respondents experience and no objective evidence that the political opinion to other persons but the mother's affidavit said both things right and the and the board doesn't exactly explain why the mother's affidavit isn't objective i think what the jurors objective or not there was a factual that's a factual finding correct with the cooperation he said submitted and this is why and i think this possible error about objective evidence requires remained or would there be an your view away no i akutan of the board is correct and there's no evidence and the record showing that there's a particular threat of persecution in light of this large population of probably our friend and  opinions or his opinions on social media but we still don't know that anyone actually knows that he stated those opinions i mean anyone in the government knows that you say those opinions are or there's no evidence that we have a find j i did not address that but i know i mean facebook didn't address facebook at all whether someone would be persecuted for posting on facebook she does say that sentence about inclination to  punish right but whether that's particularized but she doesn't say what evidence she's relying on that besides the general conduct country conditions evidence are members of that community that's all she has right paragraphs country condition evidence about imprisonment and torture of l g b t q supporters where does that evidence come from is  and evidence and has not shown shown how that how he was not given all the process that is required and also in this court's decision in determination of credibility they did not find it clearly erroneous the board found that looking at the record overall it did not meet the burden of proof to show a well and objectively reasonable well founded fear of persecution  evidence no because i don't think that's what the board is saying here i think the board is not making a finding like you would have met this burn had you submitted this evidence to the court the board is looking at what was submitted already and making a burden of proof finding which the board has the ability to do so do you agree with the aliens briefs that the crop aeration crabbing evidence issue is really for the immigration judge rather there are no further questions well thank you very well thank you for your argument ms cardona all hear from you in r based on clear error they said they were river reviewing to know whether he met his well founded fear which they would of course be permitted to do had they taken the facts as found as true were often in the alternative analyzed them as clearly erroneous ernest explained why they were clearly erroneous and then gone through that analysis me ask you this trip think that in so far as the board did which are alleging they did it only with respect to the evidence about what he put on facebook and whether he's a supporter of the movement and so forth so when it came to the particularized threat there weren't any finding particularized threat piece that the they analyzed in our understanding of twelve away point thirteen there are two alternative grounds upon which to find well founded fear future persecution it's not necessary to find a particular rise or individual life harm found a credible a positive credibility germination did not actually give any weight to the testimony that was given because she did say or started the or did say there is no evidence that he has stated his experiences or stated his political opinions to anyone concludes the argument calendar for this morning court will be in recess until eight thirty tomorrow morning