feelings jase feeling that the country conditions really didn't warrant a grant of asylum the credibility determinations are so minor and so in consequential to the issues at ha and tortured and subjected to some sort of physical persecution whereas when he testified in the court he said she looked very bad looked like she had been beaten but he didn't mention that she may have passed out h very specific as to what had happened we have a government that practice beating practiced all kinds of torture his father was forced to instead of being a lawyer was forced to become a  government security officials so  you know that you know how do you get past that i mean it's true he hasn't come back or practice law as far as we know but i don't you now i'm not sure that would be necessary in terms in five years later he's in an immigration and asylum hearing and he's being asked the question what about the political situation in armenia that's hardly a reason for an immigration judge this that that is a wonderful basis for not finding virtue of future persecution i mean that's that seems to be such a arbitrary subjective standard to apply what the immigration judge should've said is look i'm going to look at the state department reports in detail i'm going to try to figure this thing out i'm not going to make any conclusion that the situation has changed or me it is such an extent based on his testimony that i will not find  persecution the fact of the him that you have that you still have to deal with because we have to find that it would compel another result that you've got i think mr  knows he touched something that he shouldn't be touching anymore otherwise his life is going to be in danger sure nothing has happened to him because what he did is he said from now on i'm going to look the other way and i'm not going to do what is needed even less likely that his  rebut it was there was speculation well we should speculate maybe this happened maybe that had maybe this would happen but the fact of the matter is if you believe the petitioner asked persecution creates a presumption of future persecution and that's what happened in this case and the credibility determination with all due respect seems to be pretty bogus that it could be a justification for nothing more than just waiting and deciding that  were the case if your friend continue to feel that way and if someone else that agrees with that where does that take us in the case partner sufficient alternative holdings here that we would go along to the other issues reversal on the credibility finding there's still an alternative finding by the immigration judge that this court could rely on that the record evidence does not compel reversal of my case remember it not be necessary the case here it comes down to a young man saying i was apparently he fears persecution but there's no there's no next part of the sentence it's his obligation to come into the court and say the immigration court and say i fear persecution be believed that he was his father was taken down a chain held for some time than fisher was taken down to and if he had quarters and held them and detained but why the only evidence in this record is that the government that you're meeting governments want to know where these tapes will be heard where the belong to the father they never never said to to the petitioner we think you are a rebel we think you are one of the think you are one of the dosh never said that and that's and that's key because he has to show imputed political opinion in order to gain relief here he hasn't done that and there are certainly cases that come in know where these papers for apparently these papers worth of some import although we don't know what they were and again i think that goes to some of the details that were missing in this case it will be it could have been extremely helpful to know what were these papers who were these clients what was this so gary very important case that it caused the government to go after a lawyer who to force a lawyer to now work as a mason if this case was so important to the armenian government to do that and therefore so important that it would lead to a grant of relief mr threats to go on here where the details they're not there and that's why it took to go back to first the credibility determination that the record evidence here does support the adverse credibility determination there were out and then going into court and that's not testified to that's a major omission because it goes to the heart of the claim that his claim was that things were so serious for him that he got hauled down to the to the tennessee headquarters along with his mother if the father went through some bad things i got to pull down to that to that and i see headquarters but then there's no next step and the next step has to be and he claims that he was then a political opinion was imputed to him the problem with that objective reasonable basis for the fear and in this case it's not they're given a lot of the facts that are been discussed today even if all these other things were true that the father went from representing political dissidents in a you know potentially high profile does that affect the son the son wasn't persecuted because of that the son was never certain it was never said of the son look we think you're going to follow in your father's footsteps we think you're one of those rebels adarsh marcus aversive none of that and that's the type of evidence that would the alternative finding your first one was even if this person is credible there's no there's no imputed political opinion and the country conditions have changed in particular acknowledges that he's asked what do you think is going to happen if you go back and he says i don't know he didn't say i'm going to be persecuted i'm going to be locked up i'm not of those days accusations or claims those are the kinds of things that would support his his claim he doesn't even make those  number one there was no evidence presented in the record that there was a change in the country conditions in fact that was absent and so the burden of providing the presumption was that i'd also like to remind the court even though there was no systematic campaign episodic political intimidation against the dash not party continues and the court found that in two thousand and three it's on a brief on page seventeen this court recognizes that there still is objective persecution there is persecution and there is an object of fear nothing was presented by the government with regard to the actual credibility i'll just briefly touch upon it what counsel was talking about was when both he and his mother had been beaten and held in jail when he came out of the jail cell of the star's mother at first he said in his application she looked like she had passed out and had been beaten when he testified a year later at the hearing he said she looked terrible of she looked like she had been beaten if that year was a discrepancy to the point where somebody should be denied asylum that would be a finds that the credibility determination is wrong by the i j a it is our position that asylum should be granted as a matter of law and actually because of the factual issues but as a matter of law because of what