denied his cases on various grounds one of the main reasons that the i j a case was based on a complete misstatement and mis characterization of the facts and evidence in the namely she asserted that respondent never testified he was a member of a political group that he was only affiliated with in a political group on the board of appeals compounded there i pretty much repeating what the that he was consistent but then she starts to put small holes in that consistency in that finding of consistency saying well you know i didn't like his demeanor he didn't show any emotion  and she made a couple mistakes in dates even though he corrected himself under wraps without prompting when he just misspoke there was another instance where he currently incorrectly stated the leader of the party then he himself corrected  his testimony again finding he was consistent and as i stated in my new citations finding that he his demeanor it was an emotional without specifically looking into the record and stating what about his demeanor she found incredible or inappropriate that kind of finding it's inappropriate and in the circuit because she specifically stated for example when he was reciting his a rusty he had a blank expression let's say she stated that then i think that her incredibility finding would have some sort of basis but she didn't do that so under  don't know about this but assuming we were to agree with you that they are juries credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence if you take his testimony is true that it's your position that he satisfied the other requirement he's suffered persecution past persecution on account of one of the protected grounds political activity therefore he's entitled to the presumption of future persecution and there was some evidence cumulatively at all the five arrests the other incidents of harm the burning of his crops etc i think that clearly amounts to past persecution and it's true the government can rebut with a showing of change country conditions sure the i j a only need a very generalized statement regarding the conditions stating everything is improved since that she didn't pick through the department of state report to find that  with a history of problems that he experienced in the area in which he was would be safe if he returned she didn't mention any of his numerous background submissions either and although the board of appeals quoted one sentence did one page of the department of state report again that was a very generalized statement that they quoted and i think that's insufficient to find the country conditions have changed under saying versus  report she wouldn't be able to meet that test on for specificity you know i think that if she had thoroughly looked at it and found something there that specifically would have supported her position that country conditions have improved to the extent that he could return and live safely then she might have well crafted a argument to sustain her position but she didn't do that and she didn't make any mention regarding his documentary evidence and his what she deemed consistent and i argue credible testimony that the police continue to look for him if she had weighed all of those factors she might have come up with a different conclusion than the generalized conclusion that she did me i think based on the fact that she missed characterize the evidence regarding has political membership and very generally mentioned his  claim well as you know those are higher standards and organs to me and i think that should the court found that he had sustained his burden in established past person persecution this court does not even need to look at those claims but if the court finds that for some reason he didn't meet his burden as we argued in the brief in the alternative all the acts of persecution which he suffered at least cumulatively if not individually still establish past persecution but more importantly it established that if he returned because of that history that he experience he would still have a high probability even of a ten percent chance under  law of suffering some sort of harm that he would be eligible for that and i think that the background materials will stay very briefly sick leave some time for a battle indicate that the police act with impunity in especially in the sense that they've not been tried whistleblower as he claims that i think used to being a color starting the fact that they accused him of participation political rallies the fact that they did that just to even one time although they did it all five times with a sufficient basis for those findings o retaliation for complaining and thereby establishing a whistleblower defense or was it because it was a personal vendetta you know against the police for burning his crops even if this court finds was a personal vendetta and claims i'd like to focus on the credibility determine and discuss how each of the immigration judges and the board's credibility determine regarding petitioners credibility is grounded in the record it should be noted that the immigration under the analysis of facts and law heading the immigration judge found quote although the basic information is consistent i responded it's not a credible witness is loose ends and a lack of cooperating evidence  police i know that the police were after me because of my political activity how can you testify as to what the police were thinking well he may not be able to do that your honor but the law the ninth circuit and the supreme court places the burden on the petitioner to articular persecution was on account of one of the five grounds in the statute in this case he alleged in his asylum application that he was persecuted on the basis of his religion of his membership in a social group and on the basis of his political friends basically why it is that that he believed that he was being persecuted or targeted by the police on account of his political opinion and that precisely at one point during the hearing record page seventy seven just said he admitted that the rest had nothing to do with the rand so that calls into question whether or not his attending the rallies had anything to do with his political views  he did testify at a couple statements that police made about college time yes i believe that there was one point in the hearing when the petitioner testified that the police called him a do with his medical involvement with the party for instance he was not a party member his political political views were never expressed articulated to police or at any time during his attendance  claims happened to him in india was the result of the police targeting him solely because he filed a complaint against and the complaint was it appeared to be some kind of a civil law seek compensation for the destruction of his crops and that complaint significantly the only time that he ever complained about police mistreatment was after the crop burning and i'm not after i'd like to quickly address of point that judge cox made the jury counsel's presentation which is what happens if the court finds that there was a change in countries i'd like to address counsel's point on that in this case the immigration judge did make an individualized determination of how the change in country titian's will fact the petitioner should he be returned to india she found that there was no evidence that he would likely be harmed if he were to be returned to india that an