contended in his motion to go pick the seven arrests of his wife and what really did amount to a new claim by the police that they now believe he was a terror so we have a new case filed in their eyes must be a terrorist they didn't let that before and that was an allegation and saying versus what are given that the police now believe that he might have terrorist links because i think it would be beneficial to do that but i want to point out that that might not be necessary if and how this case distinguished itself from saying in that he would be on a list of those believed to be just so that we would verification identification systems would make him more vulnerable what evidence in the record is there that he's on a list it would be his credible testimony it was found government of me that he wouldn't be on a chronic offender list that the police would then want to seek him out if he did relocate in his name popped up after a identification check if that's pretty speculative isn't yeah the indian government started issuing i d s and that set the record at ninety nine dollars on the same page that he understood that a good majority for a good percentage of internationals were now issue these sort of national i d s and therefore at page ninety eight due to this national identification system he fears that the police would be more readily inclined and able to locate him and and my question was doesn't this fit within that i say believe it could fit within about him and i think i would be useful if the board would review it upon men however i'm also saying that petitioner during testimony is not required to make the legal arguments he gave the facts if court would look what do we do with that isn't that different than the saying versus whitaker case we actually have in the record where he was able to live safely in another part of the country but the cabbie that was unable to be an openly with freedom and even if he was able even if the court would find that no he was able to the facts changed when his wife started getting arrested good morning yeah i'm a peace accord making on behalf of the us attorney general this is the nd time that this case is before the court previously the court had found that the address rebutted the presumption of one hundred fear with evidence of safe and relocation in light of his continued political views and expressions there therefore that analysis did not account for any persecution that would be on account of his political  has missed characterized his political activism he never was a member of a d m he states that he was a supporter but he did not do anything politically with them therefore it goes to the other point because there was there was credible testimony that he was this helping or assisting his friends who were there are active in the party there is testimony that he was friends with these two pro that was always the way they were after him that is correct and that is the only reason why the local police were after him and so his role his role in the pit his what he was doing in that capacity didn't strike me as materially different than what mr sing friends for a long time there was no specific testimony that they did anything politically active together versus saying saying that he did have these views and he would intend to continue acting on  therefore it petitioners case is very different from saying there is no analysis that was lacking in terms of his future persecution outside of with the with the notion that there should be a recent thing opinion says that there's  presumption a nation would presumption i'm sorry but you can't really look at it in saying yes that so right that that wasn't a point that was not that presumption was applied here the presumption was actually rebutted here by the h s and that in presenting evidence that because petitioner is not a high profile militant the police outside of the local point area would not be interested in him there is no evidence that central authorities would be seeking him he is not on a list the fact that his white house minarets did is unfortunate but that is only with the local police and it is evidence that they may still be interested again relocation outside of job is still safe and reasonable for him based on the evidence that you just presented here going shows that this is only meant to target dangerous terrorists again illegal migrants or professional criminals gang members of that sort it is not just a policing generally  and with regard to that is it official identification card that is in use there is no evidence that the police use it to locate people or that they would have access to the database across the states outside of  furthermore the evidence shows that it would be safe and reasonable for petitioner to relocate outside a print job and that he did not show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in india again it was not an abus for the agency to die humanitarian asylum where petitioner did not show a compelling reason that he is unable to return to india or the reason stated today in our brief we would ask the court to deny the petition for review unless you happen to know for the questions what about the you know the other going with humanitarian yes does show that there was any compelling reason that you would be unable to return or the possibility of any other serious harm the harm that he had experienced doesn't the regulation encompass family members as well yes  meet the very high standard of humanitarian asylum in the absence of well founded fear there have been other cases where this court has granted humanitarian asylum and it does not match that level of persecution or the severe persecution for humanitarian asylum but the two ways that we can look at it is whether they've demonstrated a compelling reason for him being unable or and willing to return to the country because of the severity of the past persecution he himself experienced or just a reasonable possibility that he can suffer other serious harm apartment little to that country but in saying we characterized it as the extreme really severe persecution did we or did we not yes yes and with respect to what he himself experienced it was sure arrest and detentions where he was beaten and had to pay a fine to be released which is no greater than many other cases where i have one question one understand make sure i understand your argument on the rebuttable presumption you know that the threat exists nationwide when i read through this my sense was that the board did not consider the r presumption or didn't recognize it at all but i think i heard you say that if your position is that it was rebutted successfully rebutted yes that's correct because we presume that sherry was time credible and had demonstrated pas was incomplete due to the failure to consider his future political activism and association in india here we have the same thing here has not alleged that he was politically active as a police were after him because of his support of a cold was that the same testimony that was in the st petition that we rejected already yes that is true but it's always been found credible