immigration judges every script and except it is true the petitioners testimony that he'd been arrested three times held on that third occasion for four months beaten virtually every other day during that four month period beaten so severely that following his release he was unable to walk for a two year period it also accepted as true his testimony that his brother had been arrested with and tortured and subsequently murdered by the dramatically that this individual no longer had a well founded fear not just generally but they had to prove that this particular individual no longer has a well founded fear of persecution now the board found at the government had met that burden and in doing so it focuses was summoned by the senior superintendent of police to the police station in september one thousand nine hundred seven and was expressly specifically threatened that he would be killed as other states had been killed if he did that withdraw the complaint that he had it looks pretty clear you know we read an enormous a number of these country reports from year to year plus thousands of pages of press clippings and it looks like the troubles have trailed off you're talking about a decade ago and if we sent it back and they reopened it they would probably look at subsequent country reports  we have do you just if we accept everything that your argument gives us do we have to just say graham asylum or do we really mean and have to consider things other than his well founded fear and how they bear on asylum or do we really end it and leave it wide open so that they can consider subsequent country condition changes well i think you have to reverse the board's conclusion that the government met its burden of proof and for the board exercise its ultimate discretion and when the case goes back presumably the government could make a motion to the board asking them to reopen on the grounds that conditions have dramatically changed but that three days ventura when the government has already had an opportunity to put on change country conditions and the guys will monitor is the true venturing out appropriate to think well it's true that prior to venture are the circuit's view is that the government should get two bites at the apple now in light of the tour and it's less clear i mean ventura does specifically say that one of the purposes of renan is to allow the government an opportunity to present additional evidence regarding country conditions a would be in effect moot there's an issue presented in that motion obviously about whether the board applied a correct or incorrect standard and it's our view that the board obviously plays an incorrect standard but because this is a single number evidence that we're presenting was previously unavailable could not have been discovered are presented for the original i j hearing they're asking us to present affirmative evidence of a material change we think that's an aberration but we also think it's not necessarily it's not necessary for the court to  turn during the military and the supreme court has ordered the prosecution of a number of punjab police personnel for encounter killings an extrajudicial executions and human rights organizations are supporting more cases against human rights commission and the demonstrably likelihood of being prosecuted for abuses are serving as deterrence against abuses by the punjab police i think this is amazingly close substantial evidence which would require the court to support the findings of the i a e a the problem i have with your argument on that is that the f b i agent asked she just relied on the general  and you're right they don't quote the portion that i just read that's true thank you as i was saying another factor has to do with one thousand nine hundred ninety at that time and proposition are also always threatened with death by the police if the continue this political activities that's a page seven forty two of the record but he continued for two and a half years politically active and this threat was never carried out i think that's also substantial evidence that supports the  at the beginning of the second paragraph and they also spoke of the absence of meaningfully changed circumstances and arguments that shouldn't been made in the context of the original hearing and then if you go and you look at the administrator for record and the documents attached to the motion to reopen his own affidavit says his family gave them information quote in general terms unquote about this and his affidavit does not specify the banks involved that's page thirty six of the record so i position as the petitioner did not carry very briefly going back to the done and if you look at page thirty one two three four it's clear graph the one that begins individual speaks may be mistreated from time to time but no more than our other indians the very next sentence discussed odile of used and other police abuse does remain a significant problem despite efforts to eliminate these practices given that statement that police abuse i mean a significant problem and the fact that the board credited