petitioner from the sudan in this case where the court is reviewing the immigration court's decision because the board of immigration appeals adopted the findings of the immigration court decision of the immigration judge  page decision which summarizes accurately the law but does not discuss the extensive factual record in this in this case and we think that is why the immigration judge's decision  be reversed by this court as judged by as you were saying the immigration judge found petitioner hussein to be credible found that fischer hussein was a member of an opposition party and outlawed opposition party that he had joined while he was in  his first year of high school in khartoum the immigration judge accepted that the petitioner's family has a long basic a long history of political involvement in the sudan and basically were dealing with four generations of  political activists in this case but the judge ignored that evidence and instead denied asylum based upon three factors one was a short trip that mr hussein took to the united kingdom before he entered h rule in khartoum and the judge focused on the fact that petitioner hussein returned to the sudan and took that to mean that that must mean that the petitioner had no fear of overturning the no fear of persecution excuse me the immigrations of the judge also focused on the fact that petitioners mother who had been living in egypt after fleeing sudan with the petitioner's father and younger sister returned to the sudan for a brief visit in two thousand and two the immigration judge  focused on the fact that petitioner speculated that petitioner could find safe haven in egypt the country with which petitioner himself had never visited the judge one of the most important pieces of evidence in the in the record  is the country report on human rights from the us department of state the immigration judge cited this document by name when he briefly provided a laundry list of the various exhibits at the beginning of his decision but he did not consider any of the this case the two thousand and two country report characterized sudan as a country with human rights record that is extremely poor numerous serious abuses on the part of the security forces and perhaps most importantly to mr hussein case the state department reported that there were quote credible credible reports suggesting that the number of student victims of torture had increased during the year this is the background evidence that goes to the issue of whether or not petitioners  hussein ains fear is reasonable or not integration judging with her that how do you distinguish r and bank decision that we recently issued with regard to the indonesian christian woman she was basically making the same argument that you're making to us here which was that because christians were persecuted by muslims in indonesia although she had not herself experience direct persecution she had a reasonable fear that if she returned in egypt she would be persecuted it seems to me pretty analogous to this case well i think it's analogous to the extent that hussein's claim is based upon the future of your persecution based upon association with an outlaw political party but petitioner has things claim is also based upon the fact that his brother and sister were political activists his brother actually was tortured his brother and sister both received asylum from the immigration and naturalization service in the years mediately i believe it was a year or two before petitioner arrived in the united states in two thousand and three petitioners father was forced into exile petitioner's grandfather died not under the current military government but in under an earlier military government petitioners grandfather died as a result of his political activities with the same political party so the fear is that hussein have are much more tied into the activity actually engaged in political activity and that's correct your honor he actually i mean the government correctly describes this as as as i believe incipient activities these were just his beginning activities with the democratic union party the outlawed opposition party as a young high school student a first year high school student but he actually was did engage in political activities on behalf of the p and the immigration judge credited that testimony does it matter that the persecut were different going back and various generations because didn't the grandfather die under british law i believe the grandfather was actually executed by the by by the british colonial of the or at least i don't think that carries much weight in regard to this case whatsoever directly i think it certainly does show the length of this family's history as i was saying for generations of political activities with this particular opposition party i think it is more relevant in terms of the reasonable midst of petitioners here is what has happened to his brother who was tortured and what has happened to his father and to a lesser extent his his grandfather and his great grandfather well i guess that would go what sort of a more generalized true even though the u p a was in power i believe in a coalition government for a short period of time in the one nine hundred eighty s so the political activity of the family as well as obviously thousands of other individuals  seemed to place most of his basis for his decision is based upon the fact that hussein returned after this three month trip to the united kingdom this trip occurred when the petitioner was a year or two younger it also occurred before the petitioner himself began his act his political activities on behalf of the opposition party in in you know in high school not irrelevant but we certainly think there is plenty to explain why and indeed the petition fine i think it was a fine but his observation that there was a fear here of conscription now because of his age we we have not pursued that appeal we've before this court we think the supreme court upon forced conscription we think the factual the fact that he was fearful of conscription explains goes to explaining why petitioner hussein left sudan when he did that was one of the reasons his mother returned to get him and  political opinions this court has made clear that the question of objectively reasonable fear depends on facts in the record that on which a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find that fear was reasonable he hasn't met his burden based on his own opinion and he says he came to the will he did he came to the united states in april two thousand and two when he was fourteen years old at the done just this much in terms of political activity he had attended seven or eight small secret neighborhood meetings with nine or ten other students and he had covertly distributed do you piece flyers t friends at high school that was the sum total of his political activity there is no evidence in this record that the government of sudan was in any way aware of this activity with surveilling this activity had any reason to know about this attack is our case law require his activity was covert he kept it covered on purpose so his own testimony establishes that there was no knowledge at the time and his argument really is that they could become aware of it  of that the government was aware that he was politically active and no evidence that the government persecuted persons who were not active maybe it's only going on there you know what this is a very oppressive government has everybody knows that activity in a very short period of time then he left the country the record does not show that and has no evidence the government was aware of that activity and he doesn't have anything else to show that he personally would come to their attention other than his family's prominence now on the evidence of this family's prominence their family members who were persecuted and family members who were not persecuted even though they hold the same political views in fact come from the same family  years his father fled the country his mother remained in the country for several years after his father lived she left only to be with him not because of persecution of herself he has an older brother who when active was based on her own overt political activity at the university level again consistent with the state department country court those are the people that are persecuted so there it is long as he gets them back to you  fact finder to be compelled to find that he has shown that he then has a one in ten chance of being persecuted on the basis of a new putrid opinion from his family's political activity because many members of his family who also equally have the same political opinion have not been targeted and that's the standard he has to or somebody like him and other member of his family who has not been politically active have to be targeted based on the imputed views of his family and the evidence only shows that the government has targeted people who are active in his family and that's that's something is there no further question  i just like you addressed one point and that is the issue of whether or not the government needs the sudanese government needs to be aware of the petitioner's activities prior to the one nine hundred eighty seven supreme court decision cardoza for the sake of the board of immigration appeals case law was that an asylum applicant had to show that the persecutor was already aware or could easily become aware of the political activities on a direct political opinion claim matter