decision mentions that and governing council also mentions in their brief that the recourse that petitioner had the opportunity to contact the prime minister of armenia when he had  complaint that when he was working on a construction site for the police chief that this was a viable avenue of recourse that he could have gone to the prime minister the only reason he knew about that was because he talked to his father his father had mentioned it to him he explains the persecution he was experiencing the beatings he was experiencing it seems a very very unlikely possibility that this particular person in a small town  who was on a construction site working for the chief least being beaten by them would necessarily presume thing you have the real opportunity to conduct contact the prime minister of armenia to assist him in helping him  father say to me that he heard president bush was doing something about harassment in the workplace or harassment of workers right and me thinking that i'm going to contact him and he's going to help me there's a lot of corruption i mean yeah it seemed like a ridiculous promise for them to assume that he had a the level of threat to the petitioner and they called him on it so i think when he said i didn't have time or i didn't have the opportunity to go to the prime minister i think it's a combination of i was terrified and pretty soon after that i minister you are really saying that everybody who complains that he's harassed by the police or by in any country that the police beat him has has an obligation to go to the prime minister did it but the question is is he have an obligation to in order to some kind of remedies which is seems to be the theory it's true that i mean somebody may consider going to george bush says it's fantastic you know i think we have a wonderful system here i'm not going to let anything happen to anybody in california you know i understand your point that somebody can look at these facts and believe that it's far fetched that somebody has this opportunity to contact the prime minister however when when the petitioner fails to even challenge the findings of the immigration judge he has waived the argument and it's fozzie the finding of the immigration judge stance and even if this court were to believe that the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence there's that separate distinct dispositive finding listed at page thirty five of the record in the immigration judges opinion in which he clearly states that the respondent has not shown that the government was unwilling or unable to protect him from the renegade police officers so i respectfully submit that testimony that goes directly to the heart of this claim support an adverse credibility finding and this petitioner has had the opportunity on several occasions to try to credibly satisfy his for him to prove he had the opportunity before not i that we wouldn't be here otherwise in every case we have that's because the other levels the government has ruled against the person so it doesn't really add much to the argument to say he's appealing to the level of persecution and the question is if it is apparent from the law and the and the precedent that it does rise to that level then may we just send it back for the exercise of discretionary power or should we still some of the pack and say that the i j has to first determine whether it does do what we all know rise to the level of prosecution i think that it would under people as renegade police officers there's no evidence that the government was unwilling or unable to control these people the evidence refutes that the evidence is that the prime minister said that he wanted to stop all corruption and to bring complaints they have now i understand completely how somebody might disagree with that and feel that that may be farfetched but that's not the standard standard is whether that's supported by substantial ev well i want to get back again they never challenge the findings so first we have to get past that issue that they never challenge the immigration judges finding on that but what does does this issue with the prime minister come hell or reasonable to control police officers and that's what's at issue in this case but i think you know here the immigration judge made a finding and it was a challenge he believed it and courts and we did the play rules and doesn't matter whether they make any sense these rules that we have to apply you know whether it's more serious a less serious we could take that kind of a to an opportunity to respond to any arguments that are raising ok and really they did not raise that argument in their opening brief that that the immigration judge who is decision regarding that fighting was not supported by dispo record and we say well substantial evidence does not support the finding that the government was not its finding was the government was willing or able will say that he did  resample credible evidence that the great government was unwilling or unable to protect him from the renegade police now that would mean that issue if we were to remain and the i j that that issue had been resolved that he had presented substantial evidence to show that they were unwilling or at least on evil but that would then leave open still i think the question of whether the actual treatment that he received was sufficient to  life does he have a reasonable fear of future persecution case had it i mean how do you know at that point in time when it's the somebody says something in a minute original application he comes in it doesn't testify to he may not know that he has to testify about everything that records like this where the government comes in later and says is an inconsistency but nobody asks at the year the government doesn't pay for the witness you don't even have to say them here's an inconsistency explain it all you have to do is determination and based on that this court reviews are just for substantial evidence that might disagree and might say well i disagree that that's a significant consistency but would you be compelled to conclude to the contrary and we submit that  think you need it themselves the government has to put themselves in the position of that this particular attention or you take your position or if you find them to paraphrase that he did not even dean as soon as the government heard there was a growing involved this