i think they're ready now or had in this case unlike the last case the immigration judge presume that the petitioner mr singh did suffer past persecution on account a protected ground under the regulations therefore it must be presumed that he has a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of the original claim now the original claim in this case concerned four incidents each of which was sparked by mr singh's involvement in or the planning of a public protest first he was attacked by masked men after participating in a protest to he was chanting slogans in favor of kala stop that's the original claim the presumption is based on that claim now the the his testimony is entirely consistent and there's a critical document here in the  record and this is at page two forty eight that says that members of the mon party are not generally harassed or ill treated by the police but they may be harassed or arrested quote for participating in part of gatherings publicly complaining about the treatment of sikhs by indian authorities or calling for the creation of cost that same report at page two forty nine says it describes mon party members being taken into preventive detention in advance of demonstrations or events it says that members are quote often arrested during political agitations most of that from quite a while ago now this is a two thousand twelve report it's the most recent report in the record it describes use being arrested for quote raising costs on slogans and it knows that the leader of the party simran sheets in mind has had eighty different cases filed against him usually for sedition and it says that the cases have been filed throughout punjab and outside the state for advocating for cost on this is important because mr credibly testified that if you returned he wouldn't just continue to be a member he would continue to participate in rallies and demonstrations the exact sorts of activities that led to his earlier problems with with the indian authorities now the immigration judge in assessing whether or not he could relocate made the same air as in the last case because again three of these cases are the same immigration judge basically producing almost identical analysis but in the immigration judge's decision he talks about tenant verification but he what he says about ten of verification is that it refu to other parts of the country he said that they can and this includes sikhs who move quote to avoid the attention of the local police and their home area that would be the punjab police once again he goes on to talk about the central police but he never discusses whether mr singh would be able to engage in these rallies and demonstrations that led to his past persecution and avoid problems by the state police and that new area of relocation that's the by the petitioner in this case in other words did it he say a like you're talking about the one job police but i'm worried about the state police i'm also worried about private actors yeah he raised this issue your honor in his closing arguments before the immigration judge for example this is at two thirteen he said relocations not reasonable because quote his separate his separatist political beliefs about a state for sex will get him into trouble he went on to say this client might be ok if he gives up his political beliefs and whatever he thinks and believes and and then goes to some remote part of india but i personally do not think that anybody should be allowed to be robbed of what they believed and just to survive his lawyer saying that right right this is that he's raising the issue directly with the judge but that doesn't that go to the issue of whether he has to be quiet that's not what we're talking about we're talking about whether he raised the issue of whether the state police or private actors would be the persecutors now he's he's arguing going back to that yet first since there's an assumption here of past persecution it's assumed that no matter where he goes in india he's going to be persecuted for the same sorts of activities that he engaged in previously whether it be by state police or private actors it doesn't matter the government would  think you're saying that the punjab police they talk about them but they didn't talk about the state police so i'm saying is there any thing that he said about the state police separating them for a moment from the punjab please even though they may be part of the state police overall well they're different state police if he didn't discuss being persecuted by other state police because he's never lived outside punjab he's never been persecuted by them no of course not because he's never lived in their jurisdiction has he something that you almost have to assume potential harm that has not been raised by anybody you're saying that because of the exemption you have to assume that anything that might occur outside the state of p but that he suffered there the government has to respond to that somehow that he can do it safely he's going to advocate actively that's the nature of the presumption that he's at risk for the characteristics under m z m r the board's most important decision on that the government has to identify a location where the circumstances are substantially better  back and you look at this case it's called and that case preceded the two thousand regulations and in that case that's kind of how the board was looking at it they were saying the presumption applies to the original persecutors two years later when they codified the regulations they didn't adopt that language they said the persecution applies unless the threat is unrelated to the past persecution they said it has to be and if you look at the case matter eighty which i submitted that case makes clear that for the presumption not to apply it has to be a different persecutor and it has to be unrelated to the persecution that occurred in the past here you might have a different persecutor the state police i would argue it's the same persecutor because it's the indian government but the claim is not unrelated and that's the test in the regulations you want to save any rebuttal time that you're going to yes ok thank you  yeah in the cat this is the one case where i do think you have to have a rematch on the cat climb the board did not address his testimony that he would continue doing gage in the same sorts of activities certainly relevant to the in this case the board simply said that they didn't address the cat claim that there were no arguments made but he cited the cat he claimed his eligibility for cat three times in the brief he didn't present a detailed argument but in this case the decision denying cat was based entirely on the relocation analysis and since he challenge the relocation analysis clearly he challenged the can't claim particularly when it was in his prayer for relief  the owner substantial evidence supports the agency's decision that the that the d h has did follow the relevant regulations and applied the governing law to meet its burden to rebut the well founded fair presumption that mr singh could one safely relocate and two that it would be reasonable to do so in response to mr job's arguments i want to point out in the record that before the immigration judge and the agency mr singh specifically stated i believe that's fact that he is now bringing up state actors in his brief is something that was not exhausted her razor for the agency and so the agency could not have gleaned from any of his facts or claims that that was an issue that it that he was making based on his claim about his fear of the punjabi police and his inability to relocate the agency factored that in and they did their individualized analysis under n c m r under the regulation and found that saddle party activities the agency specifically factored in mr c mr singh's claim that he would want to practice to be a member of his party so it was so from the government's perspective and putting aside for a moment failing to raise any claims about any other state police outside the state or private actors that he had not exhausted that claim that's it i don't see anything that might come up later joe indicates that when you have the past persecution and presumption that it's the obligation of the i j a and the agency to consider every feasible way in which the petitioner in this case might be subject to the same persecution elsewhere in this case because of that is membership in an advocacy of the man party he says that includes any police other than the punjab police which are part of the state apparatus and it also includes private actors i assume he means by the congress party what i thought you said was that because that was not raised that is the police outside of punjab or private been exhausted which respond it is not conceding the record still shows that conditions in india have improved tremendously over the course of the years and so looking at the record again where jurisdictions like mr jope said jurisdictions have their own police but the government has did submit evidence showing that these other police are not interested in a sort of party member from the punjab unless he is a high profile militant unless he's a leader unless he is a terrorist then he might come to the attention of the central authorities or the police outside of punjab they do not care and the agency has considered that mr sing my continuing the same activities that he said he would like to there not he was going to say yes your honor and there is no suggestion by the agency that mr singh should hide his personal political opinion or refrain from participating in those activities the agency considered all of that and found that notwithstanding because he is not a high profile militant because he's not a leader he would not come to the attention of the central authorities or any police outside india is a democracy it's a reconcile that again by comparing the countries in n z m r the petitioner in that case was from sri lanka assess a country that's much smaller than india comprised of about four million people in this case india one point two billion people provide the court with a footnote and they said in that decision and i quote the agency did not misapply precedent because it is sufficient to define an area of relocation generally  yes as to the car claim your honor it's respondents position that it was not exhausted and the government submits that if the court finds that it disagrees then it would have to be reminded because there was no  cat analysis done in this case petitioners brief i believe stated or raised the cackling in the caption or the the subtitle of its claim raised and challenged by a petitioner it is quite onerous for the agency when reviewing hundreds of pages of evidence and and issues to be able to glean from them that a petitioner is disputing one issue unless somebody did mention it right in the caption in the introduction and the conclusion yes your honor in a summary in a summary sentence stating a sort of gives them a clue probably say he's not raising it well took to raise the issue your honor i would submit that it has to be it has to be the issues the actual issue has to be stated or disputed what is it that they're challenging is it the relocation aspect of it is it some other factor or the cat regulation lists some non exhaustive factors that need to be considered and the immigration judge i believe considered not just relocation but they looked at just stated in a caption it's not sufficient to stated in a conclusory statement it's not sufficient to just under the federal rules of appellate procedure and under sorrow this court the board mr singh was required to articulate the reasons and consider all the factors that were raised by the immigration judge in making that his his claim to the board and the fact that he didn't do that to give the board didn't put the board on notice of the board could then say one time you say it was yes i believe it's our versus ashcroft and i believe it's in our brief but i am unable to locate it the cement let me check in the table yes our versus ashcroft and that's three eighty three f third nine hundred twenty seven regardless of whether respondent has only been targeted by then of interest to local police that is the punjab police he remains in danger because any type of police whether local learned has the ability to track him down and arrest him let me ask you this following up on what my colleagues talk about the government takes the position that mentioning what would be the cat's name in three different places but without analysis is insufficient what is your best argument that that is enough to put them on notice and we need to send this back to the v a because the cat kink claim was denied entirely the only reason the immigration judge gave for denying the cat claim was internal relocation and argument was and it incorporated its relocation analysis in the asylum context and that entire argument