that he and his father worked worked hard for quote no other reason than being members of the sikh religion in the quote that must have been the brief filed by his attorney was yes and that to me is just a flat representation proceedings before the immigration judge computer put up a imputed political opinion comes up every day it's something that you don't normally have to argue in opening or closing statements it's just one of those things except the immigration court because it's a common it's it's such a shot in the head twice because the soldier mistook him for his father but there's nothing in that case to suggest that the father was suspected of being political and militant or anything like that there was no plus it was just a case of mistaken identity in this case by contrast we have a situation where imputed political pinion is she just simply ignoring the doctrine or if you have the view that if it's a case of mistaken identity plus as a matter of law that does not constitute an imputation of political opinion we don't know about statement that was made by his former counsel to the board of immigration appeals but it seems to me the question is whether or not this issue of imputed political pain has been waived and it hasn't been because it was clearly raised before the board we prepared the notice of appeal and then our client fired  quite frankly that i have is whether or not this this case takes on a different character because it's a persistent mistake in other words it is a case where that or the petitioner says i'm not this person the name is the same and then five later some significant period later he's again arrested under the same guys and the authorities do not believe him they don't believe that they are mistaken obviously and so perhaps takes on a different character because they don't acknowledge that there is a mistake and it looks as though the potential for them to continue to make that assumption is that legally i think that's relevant but i don't think that's relevant to the question as presented to the court at this point that's going to be relevant and remain in terms of whether the government can rebut the presumption that arises a future persecution because he's going to we're going to be arguing that the government is persistently making this mistake and that's the fact that they released in the first time that doesn't rebut the presumption of harm but at this point we're focused on the question of whether or not the past persecution was at least in part on account of it imputed political opinion and the problem is that the judge just didn't grapple with that and under thomas i think the appropriate resolution of this case is for the court to say well there's no law that says that is a case of mistaken identity as a matter of law can that fall within the ambit of imputed political opinion and then reno and this case so that the immigration judge can then apply that principle to the facts of this case because she really did petition has failed to prove past persecution on account of a protected graham petitioner and the evidence of record does not compel a contrary conclusion or admitted that the police sought him in one thousand nine hundred two because they thought he was the other mr gill the other mr girl is someone he went to great school with who in the village is a known terrorist militant who apparently was harboring weapons had a group of other militants the record shows that when the police were interrogating petitioner they never asked him about his political beliefs whether he was a sikh yet nothing related to the petitioner in this case merely they asked him information related to the other mr gill where are you hiding the weapons where are your colleagues items of that nature in his defense he tried to explain he was the mr gold if the hockey player but they never addressed what he in whether any political beliefs for imputed to him and naps why respondent contends that this decision of the immigration judge that he failed to prove the on account of ground whether you know assuming for purposes of reputed militant the ground he would have a strong case you know looking at that we don't know his circumstances but his situation is more closely aligned of there would be no mistaken identity it would have been that they were looking for him as a terrorist possibly for criminal activities petitioner testif other individual with the same name has killed people it would be a completely different analysis for the terrorists mr single because that would be someone who's known to have violated laws with a known terrorist kill people harboring weapons so on and so forth so that's a different situation i believe that's what george wardlaw i believe her concerns might be related to sort of mistaken identity plus in the sense of this person is a known terrorist they're impugning the political opinions and activities to petitioner when in fact when we read the transcript and statements related to why they were detaining him in the questions they asked him none of that relate to actually whether they imputed the political opinions or activit of imputed political opinion in this case yes they were interrogating him your the militant were looking for you're the terrorist you're the murderer confessed tell us where the weapons are confessed tell us where your colleagues are and in his defense he was explaining he what he was the hockey player he wasn't this individual never did the police or petitioner never explained or ignited or even issue that they went beyond looking for this other person and attributing just identity of this other person or maybe just to take this opportunity to expand the doctrine of the heated political e where once they realize that once the father in the village official showed up at the police station with money and an explanation and cooperating that he was the hockey player ways whether that was because of the money or because they realize they have the hours we don't know so we don't know but well if you whether it was because of the money or they realize the wrong person meaning they they have the for you know it's clear in the record you know assuming of everything petitioner presented was credible that there were two individuals they lived in a small village of one hundred ten people and there were two two people with the exact same name that lived proximately located to each other and that in ninety two when he was picked up the end of it the other mr single was in the village and they were looking for him and nine ninety seven petitioners statement in the record discusses that the other mr single had returned to the village and was apparently they were the police had been hunting for him and he was located in the field next to petitioners parents home and that is most likely why they approached petitioner's parents home looking for the other mr senor because they lost him in the field there was an incident ninety two nothing else occurred to petitioner or the family intil ninety five which was the night that petitioner in his declaration stated the other single was in town was to family since then you've got brothers sister parents wife and child living in the family home working on the family farm nothing related police have not pursued them but that cuts both ways that shows that they stop pursuing because the one they're really after is now here or they caught the other one well that is senator i think i'd be happy to consider th grounds now the immigration judge so only found that this was a case of mistaken identity peckish and failed to meet any burden of proof that this is the be i affirmed the disposition except for the adverse credibility finding and this case i believe is different than the kumar decision because in our case here the immigration judge actually made an alternative finding and stated twice and in her decision that even if we assume petitioner to be credible all of the facts don't prove there was you know the petitioner did well in my time is that can i finish the thought thank you immigration judge petitioner raised political opinion check the box in the asylum application the immigration judge found that all of the did not rise to the level of showing any political opinion and that this was solely a case of mistaken identity and the evidence of record doesn't compel a country conclusion thank necessarily cannot constitute persecution on account of political opinion when when mr gill begins to testify about the arrest that he suffered in one thousand nine hundred two the judge instructs counsel just try to keep it short ok because i think it is an statement  testimony it seems like this is a case of mistaken identity and any of that she had in mind made up this is a case of mistaken identity that resolves the matter and i think that's the legal error that she committed here and her analysis in the decision doesn't suggest anything to the contr and what's troubling here is we don't have the agency's perspective on this we don't have a board opinion we know that the immigration judge can't state the agency's position with regard to this legal question that's why we think it has to go back at a min