evidence in this record that she did suffer past persecution i don't think you need to decide cases on those grounds with regard to past persecution i think it's more than then you've stated there your honor after her son and her husband were arrested and tortured she was chased from her home her home was violated and ransacked the police and former head of her village that she was harboring terrorists they threaten that when they catch here they're not going to spare her this is something that she interpreted as a death threat this is clear from page five zero two of the administrative record done something with it but there's no hard evidence the important fact with regard to the husband is that he was arrested held for four months in a secret location and brutally beaten to the point where he was really not even able to walk when he returned home and the same thing happened to the son not once but twice but going back to the past persecution doesn't ever show up and you no know he's still missing but going back to the past persecution thing another couple of points here i mean and two separate occasions in order to obtain the release of her son the police extorted money from her one thing that i just find to be abominable is that when her husband was being held for four months in a secret location they refused to divulge to ms cow or his whereabouts that in and of itself i think rises to the level of persecution for four months while this man was in the police custody she had no idea whether husband was dead or alive they forced her to sign a blank page telling her that if she ever criticised the police that page would be used against her tha claim i think that there's a strong strong argument there's compelling evidence here that she did suffer past persecution when you view these things cumulatively but certainly there's no denying that she is a well founded fear for the future persecution and she fled the country just two or three months of the that he's living safely that he's working that he has any sort of life whatsoever all we know from this record is that he's in india ms carr testifies or says and is well enough off to be able to afford phone calls for america yes he may be getting money from family we don't know bottom line is we know nothing really except that he calls home once a month or once every two money evidence during this very least been harmed there's no evidence either way she knows nothing he doesn't tell her anything about his personal situation she doesn't he doesn't even tell her where he is except that we now he's not with relatives she made that clear on page one seventy one one seventy two the record there's no evidence of harm isn't it fair to infer that he is under the circumstances of this case i'd say no your honor because what's happening here is this man has intentionally withheld from his mother any information about his per his circumstances and because of that we can't infer one way or the other anything really about his circumstances we know that his mother says that he's in hiding  five fifteen he's not with relatives other than that the only thing we know is that he's able to call home once or twice once a month or once every other month nothing else the government focus is a trying to defeat the well founded nature of this claim raise that argument there big argument here is that conditions have somehow changed and that now she's safe well obviously that argument's a nonstarter because these conditions changed some two years before the police came to her home arrested and tortured her son and of the country profile that says as policy on this point applicants who maintain that terrorist groups are active after late one nine hundred ninety three are generally not credible although those who allege mistreatment by the authorities may be court my name is sandra mclachlan i represent that responded pretty general of the united states in this case i actually have very little to say and i want to encourage the court asked me the questions that it may have for the government in this case because counsel simplif this a great deal for us in this or in this argument i would agree with him that this is fundamentally from the board level a well founded fear case and i think he is correct in that in that assessment i however before this court would tell you that this is more properly characterized as a classic substantial evidence case and the questions of the court highlighted this mrs cower may have inferences from what took place and which  board question if you if you look at the facts of this case even the overall circumstances this council represents that in fact that's what the board is supposed to look at that's what the board did look at under the circumstances the threat that we're referring to here is passed on from person to person and eventually reach is this coward who inferred from what's being told her second or third or even forehand or however many hands that it is a death threat based on how it's passed along to  the question is under the overall circumstances given what's taken place to her and given what's and to her son and even given given what's happened in the rest of her family that's still there that helped her escape that sheltered her and hasn't been harmed is that the fact that she's inferring from something that you've heard that they might and if you if you actually read counsel's brief he says and in fact she says and testimony that or as it's translated that she suspected that they might come looking for and she suspected that if they did come looking for she compel a reasonable fact finder to reach the opposite conclusion you want and i want my answer yes your honor you will have the chance to throw by that that answer it is the position of the government that those facts simply don't reasonable fact finder to reach that conclusion and in fact it is also the position of the government that on those facts and on the circumstances that were taking place in india the fact that the callous and movement unraveled not just not just the terrorist movement but also the entire you know the entire movement was co opted by the government because the government brought those people into the government and the government launched the human rights commission out there to evaluate the situation and as a result of those circumstances e so we have not only the circumstances that happened to her personally we also have the circumstances that her son is there and unharmed and it is only her inference from the fact that he doesn't tell her anything that he's hiding or something like that the fact that she doesn't know where her husband is but he's not in government custody is it just it just simply doesn't add up to the definition of persecution even as applies  as court in cases like ali counsel made it clear he was arguing that the most serious thing that had ever happened to her was the fact that the police wouldn't tell her the location of her husband while he was being healthy four months your honor it doesn't add up to persecution and that's what the board found that's what the immigration judge found a reasonable fact finder would not be compelled to the opposite conclusion if the court has no further questions i have nothing for the wrong  it's true the ultimate question here is the reasonableness of her fear if your husband were arrested held secretly for four months brutally tortured your son was arrested on two separate occasions brutally tortured and then the police came looking for you would you be afraid would your fear be reasonable a ceremony which your son was criticizing the police for having arrested him brutalized him in just hours after that the police came to her home they accused her personally of harboring terrorists and supporting calloused and they told the head of her village that when they find her they will not spare her that's compelling evidence no reasonable person in their right mind is not going to be afraid at that point given the fact that her husband was brutalized her son was brutalized now the police are saying we want you and we're not going  compelling evidence now the government says well conditions have changed that's simply not the case it's true that the militancy has died down the torture isn't demick in india we know this because the country profile that the government relies is on page forty five of the administrative record the state department says custodial abuse is in india and says that the brutality of the indian law enforcement goes back to centuries this is not something that's going to change the most recent documentation in the file is the country report from the year two thousand again the state department says torture is common throughout the country there's on page two sixty three we have the police looking for ms power they've already tortured her husband they've already tortured her son and now they want her and torture is a big with us in india which is it reasonable to be afraid of course thank you thank