the court my name is daniel roemer i represent the petitioner mr carlos silva we are here today to ask this court to reverse the decision of the board of immigration appeals denying mr stillwell political phylum the board has made indicate your mind mind is on this but if we were to conclude that there is substantial evidence in the record the support for the terminations of the term determination of no past persecution no well founded fear of future would any error in connection with the consideration of these other country reports be harmless court finds that he was not present if we look at the high judge to turn the v r a its conclusions with respect to past persecution whether what happened to your client amounted to persecution and the conclusion flowing from them that there was no well founded fear of future persecution would any error by the boards consideration of the material that your client obviously didn't have an opportunity to respond to would that be harmless  well there's evidence and there's evidence just because he says it's true and he believes it doesn't mean it's true of the court went on and said well quoting lopez and i believe quoting delcarmen molina said for the purposes of eligibility the fact that that person testifies as to these facts that is that is true now i think it's a stronger case where you have a foundation and when there is documentary evidence that supports the threat and we have that in this case we h guerrero and another case to state that where the person has had to relocate where they've tried to avoid the persecution and they've relocated that that that those factors actually constitute actual past persecution  where a person also was was persecuted and where the persecutor tried to recruit the individual and if the threat in those in that case was that the guerrillas were aware that this person had some family members on the that retaliate a retaliatory threat and the court held that that was a threat so that's the closest case that we have in terms of lining up the fact i can see my time is expiring i'd like to make one quick point about the country conditions in the change in the that the government hasn't changed that there are some proposed changes but as of june two thousand and three that those changes are not in in effect and that the government security apparatus can continue to conduct itself and in keeping with its cold war decision is in fact supported by substantial evidence and there's certainly no evidence in this case that compels an opposite conclusion this court should therefore hold to be a huge decision what is most interesting about this case will plainly wasn't ok for the for anyone to rely on the country conditions reports that wasn't part of the record opponent he should have at that point if he didn't believe that was proper he could've rebutted it he could have told them to be this is in crawford he failed to do that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies this is this court which is in the public domain it's a public record and there's no rebuttal whatsoever and also says that there's got to be individualized application in all sorts of things which require development on the real record well that that thirteen years later someone who was not forcibly recruited into do to that's not the evidence here who is requested on several occasions to join g two or would you like would be a very good opportunity for you who is no more than knowledge of g to that report since there's no indication anyone like that would ever be in trouble with g two and a b i only say that we have a soldier who was honorably discharged he served this time there he did he could have asked the board it's improper of you to consider this i would like a chance at with bottle he did none of that you know someone for just trying this curious i was on a calendar about two months ago  we what we have the failure to exhaust if the court were to find that's not the case and the appropriate remedy would be to remain back down to give them a chance to rebut this but of course one had have it was going to consider these new country reports the i did not say anything what we have is the ice cube just argue that what we have just argued that the v a put the petitioner on notice and he had an understand the more important argument though and this is sort of the eight hundred pound gorilla which is just sitting on our shoulder and has not been addressed yet is the supreme court decision in a law a sack of rice because this case is practically back that's almost an exact quote from what we have here and supreme court specifically said that is not enough in his distant from the original petition in the hearing judge noonan referred to a lying sac of one of the five considerations one of which in the one that's in question here is political opinion now of course it can be many reasons for not wanting to join a group or not wanting to go to war it could be i just want to go back to my wife i just want to go back to my civilian opportunity for you would you like to go into g two so by his simple said no i would not and the c e o said nothing further want to twice again then mentioned it but it was always in the context of this was a great opportunity the money would be good there was never any kind of implied threat you must do this or think about you clearly think about your welfare think about your health nothing at all like that they asked when  recruiters came to the restaurant with service in their work they sat down with them tell us what's going on would you know we've got this opportunity for you you're a good typist you're a good soldier this would be very good for you told them i want to go back to my wife and they did nothing no one ever heard him and when he came to the united states he was specifically asked how are they still looking for you the answer is no on those circumstances we just christ had no political opinions there was no record evidence that the government had any interest in him for political reasons and there was no testimony as there is here as to the account of issue and it's clear in delcarmen molina that