future persecution was sufficiently rebutted by a preponderance of evidence establishing a fundamental change of circumstances such that petitioner long known wanger was presumed to have a well founded fear what is of significant just undisputed and if he doesn't claim to have had any more political activity that he never joined a party and claim to join the party and he doesn't would like to suggest to the court is that those conclusions have to be related to something in the record and and what is not in the record is an absence of country reports department state country reports in fact the i j specifically stated i'm taking administrative notice of us part of state materials but there's nothing in the record to indicate what material she was relying on to support her conclusion that given the current conditions in india at that time and the low political tied to the report are they well i believe that those conclusions they tie it to i mean when he says the respondents testimony that the congress party is no longer in power they're tying it to the response just money not to the country report now but but his testimony not based on the country report well certainly yes it is but i would i would submit that those conclusions in addition to the country reports themselves of whatever reason can't the be a take notice all by itself of what everybody knows anything about india knows that the congress party is no longer in control yes but the district should be given a reason  circumstance on him individually but they can take notice without giving them a chance to rebut of the fact that water runs downhill and the congress party no longer in control seems more like the water runs downhill i would i would submit your modern closing that  six he doesn't have any reason to fear any more basically yes you are to understand that you have to understand what's going on in india now well i think that the evidence just goes to like pressing answer that question six is that these are different now and how do you know they're different now because you look at the country conditions reports well i think it's important to look at the key fact competition is testimony that reflects the change conditions which is the congress party is no longer in charge but we all know whether a specific india or something something else in mere change of what party is in control can mean almost anything and what the actual on the ground consequences are of the congress power no longer being in charge i think that's going to be a matter of debate well i think it would be ordinarily but for the immigration judges additional analysis which the board focused on when they talk about the lo not sure you're characterizing correctly what happened in those four things where if i think they're not they're not doing it by accident well they're not doing it because they think he's sympathetic to the congress party then me making a mistake with respect to that day in which the episode with respect in the sports figures and so on i mean you make a mistake when i think you sympathetic to somebody else but nonetheless they've imputed to him something and as we all know imputed political opinion for purposes of asylum is the same as actual opinion if i may or are likely just briefly taking votes away from the congress party and then they persuaded him to withdraw from the election and that's the one where he has the most political connotations the second arrest all your honor is petitioners on tests but it sets forth that he was arrested because the question about the folks who were staying with him because they were suspected terrorists and he also questioned according to his own testimony from a court is not just me that there was a shooting about a year prior related to sports treatment and so he sets forth these law enforcement scope  third arrest your honor that other folks were arrested including people from the congress party and then beat on the fourth the rest which happened over two years later he was arrested because his neighbor was a suspected terrorist and who was end i don't find that i believe to be i don't find that there are sufficient legitimate here for a future persecution well if i'm right and understanding that that's not to be a road well that means we've got to assume that those four things are not to you look at it from a different perspective and perhaps not a technical perspective but more realistic personal perspective given that he was arrested in ninety six and given leave the country in ninety seven this is not one of these circumstances where some of the rest of the ninety six he stays there happily and unmolested for ten years no he leaves so the only significance of not that arresting so long ago is that something must have changed back home that i think fairly rare and to be i  well ok that tells us something but the only way that could possibly tell us something given that he left in ninety seven is we got some extra no evidence external to his testimony that life is different i don't believe so your honor i think the term low to find that he did not have a well founded fear because petitioners whole case is that the congress party is after him because his political opinions but the rest as i mentioned don't three or four rest don't add up to that y regarding the change party leadership and it's only because it's of the low political nature of what his role what his job was he was one very very have this right this guy never joined a political party correct he never joined political recalled voting for the congress party one time and actually between the third and fourth arrest actually went to the congress party for protection that does not seem to be any sort of evidence that would compel this paul to reverse the finding that he had a well founded fear of future persecution know who they are cops come and go but they're all going to know who they are bad how insults men in the old days of south africa at everybody's going to know who they are but are locked into saying i'm thinking it's this case it's more like if a cop and stopped me in the yukon territory for speeding ten years ago and he seemed to really not like me i wouldn't worry about driving there because i think you're number one i off and he won't see me number two even if he does he's probably retired and number three even if he doesn't he's not retired he won't remember me and i'm not on s seven as a result of being questioned for his whether or not he knew the neighbor who was a suspected terrorist so the warrant threw out for the crime of harboring not for politics or concealing at least as as as translated terms it didn't say it just that he was hiding himself from it looks like from police questioning it wasn't available and that's how some of the other record evidence describes it that the police are literally one thousand nine hundred six warrants or we'd like and i believe there warrants w hundred ninety so several years afterwards and that's i think what part of reason why the immigration judge who wanted to get a good foundation for these came through and commented in his opinion how they did not have the usual remember the page number political reason for harboring this political now but but it's also it may be reasonable to presume also that that ninety nine arrest what that went out for him was in response to that last arrest and whether or not they the police tha