i think the government is misguided for three quarters of its brief if not the whole brief but three quarters of its brief is arguing about credibility issues that's not that issue is not before the court that was never raised by the government is never raised by the petitioner immigration judge after looking at the totality of the circumstances all the evidence determined at the reese that the petitioner was credible and the board confirmed that so that if she was even before the court before the court is does a substantial evidence looking at the record as a whole support the a reasonable fear of persecution is that right yes your honor that it's totally correct oh and that's a tough standard it is we have to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government right yes your honor so what how is it that the government compels that finding well if we just go by the immigration judge as he says in which the board basically confirmed it that certain facts were credible basically the research the petitioners claim was credible that he had suffered immense persecution you know specifically that that it all started when two of his his friends his closest one of them as close as friend who happened to be homosexual were dismissed he posts post a message in support of his friends in the g b t i a community at the university and thereafter arrest warrant is issued by the police because of his activities in support of of the gay community and in support of his friends  he's beaten up by four men a few days after that is left on the ground bleeding has been slashed on the neck other students passing by find him there on the ground struggling they taking to the hospital to me i don't i don't see how that cannot be passed persecution well it is that that assault only  government would protect it does does that matter well it doesn't matter your honor if the government could the government couldn't and the government came to him when he was in the house but all the police did right yet interviewed him and there's nothing to suggest it is there in this record they didn't take that seriously yes yes well we don't know but but they they they came they took report and he told them what what had happened crying right now i'm sure they could see the expectation that they would do something about right right show that the government's going to protect him if they're coming to wrestle you say they didn't do anything they did do something following that right they did something in the negative i guess i would i would explain it that way you know that they didn't do anything to say to protect him they came to him and liked some of the other people in his situation similarly situated that were involved in the in the gay rights movement or were gay themselves those individuals would get arrested they would evidence that you have a homophobic element throughout the society in cameroon ok not just society but also with public officials with the law the law in cameroon still today criminal as same sex activity so the law hasn't changed the police still have the right under that law to go arrest individuals such as the petitioner who are involved as advocates who are associated associated with this community clarify for me just a little bit on the record so the record indicates that he has this assault he doesn't really follow a complaint but the police nonetheless come to seek out information for him and i gather he get obviously gets out of the hospital some day and the police still don't arrest him correct is that right correct and so how many days after he got out of the hospital before he got himself over to the united states so your honor he was he was attacked on november the tenth taken to the hospital apparently that same day is when the police recalled by the hospital they came talk to him apparently completed the police report he stayed in the hospital until november twenty fifth so he stayed there parts of the fifteen days ok ok was receiving medical treatment for all the injuries he had suffered ri is released he goes to his cousin's estate not his mother's where he had stayed earlier although actually when he was attacked he was living he has to do partly close to the camp that he says to his cousins and then  much time passes before he comes to the united states he left on december the sixth so a very harris no there was no attack no attacks against him after that the police did not protect him against well the worst so what after somewhere around there december the sixth so just a few days after he had left the hospital the same as cousins during the night because thrown through the window ok in the room where he stayed there's a note attached to it threatening him because of support of the of the gay movement he was trying to get out of cameron's that yes he had he had wanted to come here for a conference and other things yes but then he had this change change of circumstances where he gets involved because he sees what's happening to his friends  best friend and when that's best friends was murdered another one disappeared here's the problem having with your case it appears to me that this is one of those cases where if the immigration judge had wanted to find a reasonable fear of persecution it could have but the standard is whether the record compels that finding and as i understand it he didn't really suffer any persecution at the hands of the government he did suffer some persecution from private individuals that the government then went and interviewed him about and then the question becomes well does he have a reasonable fear future persecution if returned it will be singled out and we have the state department country reports that say thanks have changed a lot in cameroon and that you know mistreatment  record it's hard for you to say that if you do stablish that the record compels of finding of a reasonable fear of future persecution my limited time here that's much time you need to answer that question yes as long as you stick to that question yes i understand that's a very valid question you're on it as  well first of all with all due respect your honor i would differ somewhat in in what the what the country ports state an amnesty international report state so there are three state department country ports twenty thirteen twenty sure burden in front of the immigration judge this is st you're you just have to commit that immigration judge that there's a reasonable possibility right you lost now the burden is different we don't we don't evaluate that we have to evaluate whether the records supports the finding could support that finding against you or whether the record compels a contrary finding reasonable possibility is and ten percent is out of the case that you lost on that it seems to me wrong about that as a matter of law well i think the standard of review is the court notices is crip correct but i think on this record even if things have significantly dropped ok there's not as many rest today as they were and persecution of gays have dropped in camera now your client's not getting so what is the evidence to suggest that a person who's not get it on one occasion years before had said something supportive of gay that when he goes good morning honors america miles for the attorney general as judge cryer's pointed out the standard is high here the burden is high on mr sama to prove that this court must be compelled to conclude in his favor agree with him so that means even if there is evidence or even substantial evidence that could support his position here that is not enough he has to show that even if there's a lot of it right he has to show that it compels reversal of what the agency found here and the agency found that he failed to meet his burden of showing that the government of cameroon was unable and unwilling to protect him in the past  that the government cameroon has any likelihood to go after him in the future or to protect him from those private actors he just hasn't shown that whatsoever so just to quickly address there's no past persecution in this case because the acts were done by private actors and we know that the police did in fact come take his statement he doesn't claim he didn't give them the full picture as to what and why it happened he doesn't claim that the police would not investigate that they said disparaging remarks so he did tell the police when they came to the hospital that it was because he said he gave his claim as to what happened and that's all we have in the record but what's really missing is important here he doesn't say i was afraid to tell them why it happened or that people thought that i was gay or that i'm helping he said he dave them his statement as to what happened and remember edition only a warrant was already out for his arrest at this point so the police come to talk to him on the tenth meanwhile a warrant had a rich issued on the fifth so five days and he's in the hospital for two weeks the police had plenty of opportunity to come make sure he's well enough come and harassed him in that two week period they did they never did but they didn't execute the war that is our attempt to his mother's house attacked but if you look the timelines a bit murky in this case because things that kind of change but if the immigration judge credited his statement which is begins on page two eighty three in the record and in his statement he says the warrant issued on the fifth and it was soon thereafter that the police went to execute the warrant at the mother's house that would imply that it was before the november tenth attack before the nothing clear to say was after and according to the statement which is what the immigration judge credited it strongly implies that it happened before the incident of the attack so but in any event he was in the hospital for two week period after this november fifth warrant issued the police never came for him he got out of the hospital was a round in the area until about december tenth he never ever encountered the police again he never suffered any other attack again either there was an alleged brick throwing incident that he didn't testify about but it was in that statement that was credited by the immigration judge but he didn't report it to the police about their arrest or about his status he suffered no repercussions for telling them in his statement that he was attacked due to the perception that he's guy or was a gay rights advocate so there was no indication here in addition so that's that's the past and in the forward looking clay again we have everything that we know the police has already done as to invest in taking a statement not indicating they wouldn't  investigate that and then we have the state department twenty fifteen reports of the immigration judge relied both on his own experiences with the police and with the private actors in addition to the country conditions which you know first and foremost what is illegal in cameroon is consensual homosexual activity so it's more the act of being gay and acting upon that there's nothing that i've seen in this record that outlaws activism political support groups people advocating are posting posters like he did advocating for gay rights so you know his act of posting something in support of gay rights  even unlawful illegal but the fact that he's perceived as being gay is something that would push him over into perhaps the category as someone who's perceived as gay but regardless the reports indicate that there were  and additionally what i think is important in the report is that people who identify as b t i or even activist groups that have come forward to the police sought their protection reported threats reported extortion there are few to no reports that they were then arrested or extorted by the police so they didn't suffer repercussions from reporting essentially to the police in seeking the police help and the police did come forward take their claim and investigate so the reports between twenty thirteen and twenty fifteen are drastically different and again people who people are last afraid to come forward according to the reports because they are not then being arrested for identifying as one of those groups or activists in support of their rights so i think the country reports coupled with his own experiences with the police really are substantial evidence which is all this court needs to let this decision by the agency stand if the court doesn't have any further questions for me i'll sit down thank you thank you mr mr ritchie would you say five minutes for  experience ok in addition to the country report sport the board's finding i think it's totally the opposite there's nothing in the research in the petitioners claim ok to show that he other hasn't been persecuted persecuted or has a well founded fear of persecution in the future you know that was all right so as i understood what she was arguing she was saying that after he was assaulted and was hostile was in the hospital the police came and took his statement and you know he reported the incident there was no attempt while they are to execute this warrant as i understand it what she was saying was immigration judges is considering that experience along the country reports about dramatic improvement in a valuating whether he has a reasonable fear of future persecution that is a fear that he will be singled out for persecution if returned to camer said there's a victim here summoned a victim of a crime you know come so please show up show up the same day it happened and i like the didn't have a chance to go look in the computers assuming they even have computers there at the play station you know the look up always us person this victim wanted by the police you know they'd do their job they show up they do a report they leave they don't do anything after that so the record is has there's no evidence and records show they didn't thing after the art of this i don't want to talk to them they've got a warrant out for my arrest i don't want to talk with i'm a gay rights activist you know if i do that then they're going to target me he doesn't there's right there it's not in there and we don't know right now that as i said minister court could consider that evidence along with the country reports and find that he doesn't have a reasonable fear of future persecution of being singled out if returned to cameron that's what i understood her argument to be i just want to make sure you're responding to that argument well your honor i don't believe that's a reasonable inference that the immigration judge made ok that the police were there or that the police actually were doing taking steps to protect the petitioner from these anti gay groups or to control the anti gay groups i don't think that example of the police showing up and taking the police report at the hospital and we don't know how much they questioned him because we have to keep in mind his state is condition it's just been point the judge found that he did have a subjective fear of persecution it your honor the state department reports yes they mention an example of where the were a police officer walking by seen a transfer site been attacked got involved one instant well the state department report is clear that there's been many activities or many actions of conduct against