hussein appeared before the immigration judge without counsel yet he nevertheless managed to provide credible testimony and piles of evidence that he thought demonstrated the only thing the i j a told him on four separate occasions that he needed to show the reasons he was afraid to return to pakistan that after evidence yes you're on that's the st time i've ever heard that and instead of overwhelming evidence piles of petitioners home temples well let me ask you this i mean obviously the agency found that the harm suffered by saying were incidents of generalized violence and did not demonstrate that the taliban targeted him personally and your spirit of review on this is ask him how the record has compel a contrary conclusion so even though i j or the i could have found that it was individualized it didn't so why does the record compel a contrary finding because i think you know the one where the whole town gets his jewelry store gets burned down and everyone kind of gets forgotten and then you have incidents that mr hussain if it even if other people are attacked in an incident it doesn't negate the fact that he himself was also targeted he was one of many who was targeted in the two thousand and seven attack and that is fine he doesn't need to be the only one targeted his terror was ringback he was captive under siege he testified that fellow committee members were killed in an attack his friends were kind of bits and pieces there's record evidence stating his kidnap him the record evidence is is replete showing that there is there is sufficient targeting into that was gone so it sounds like your argument is that well they target the counties and he's being specifically targeted but i mean you would agree i expect that at some level i mean if you're targeting a country does that mean everybody in that country is specifically being target i think that you know it's not so it sounds like it sounds like you're kind of agreeing that they were just harming the town but  and eighty five when he said meet he went he met his particular committee he's part of a particular committee of the past or i had the idea properly pro idea would have found that the only people killed in that attack in two thousand and seven were members of the needs approach when i read your brief it reads a little bit like the i j a basically needed to lead him by the hand and say you know this is what i need can you give me what i need but you know you also these are adversarial proceedings right they are obvious and and i try to put myself in the shoes the i j v i j just basically says this is what i need to hear from you to give you the relief that you want and people are inevitably going to say that i think and so there's some tension there so where is the mean mr hussein also said that he shows photos of of his friends at the end of the hearing who are mutilated the i j a feel so you've been asked are you afraid this will happen to you  you know after the taliban when he said boys are following me the i j a dismissed that completely he didn't even ask is this were they trying to kidnap you what is it what why was why was this concerning to you there's multiple areas in  the in the hearing where the idea could have pro and it seems that you know that the we have overcome the presumption that the agency even considered the entire record because the agency fails to you know that i take is not the boyer or the advocate for and i completely agree with you judge callahan this is exactly the point the idea never explains mr hussein what were the elements of asylum journal more time and hearing four times he only said you only have to show me while you're while you're afraid he never once specifies what the elements are which in and of itself is it is the most you know glaring due process error had mr hussein you the elements if there's anything circuit is clear the idea that the minimum has to explains my client what he needs to prove to show asylum mr hussein had no idea that he had a nexus requirement he had no idea that there was past persecution was even relevant to his claim pakistan at that sort of you can't help help but notice the irony of that well well your honor there's another glaring issue here when it comes to relocation the i j a and the to go to the required factors under federal regulations they have to engage in those factors they have to question is there serious harm family ties administrative infrastructures and there's there's the evidence in the record  testimony that it would be unsafe and reasonable for him to relocate the i j e b a itself it knowledge is the they admit that their attacks continue in every province in pakistan the admit that there is no place where the taliban is not that could that could target mr hussein in this quarter ready found it and so that that's i saw your argument on that and my st thought was i mean you could kind of say that about europe right you could say terrorist attacks happen on occasion in europe you could i mean not recently you could almost say that about america that there's violence and certain areas and  also so that's much like it seems now you're arguing is basically what d pakistan you can't be one percent safe anywhere and therefore that shows you can't relocate is that can that really be right because like i said i think that would you can guarantee your safety in portland your honor  just because there are civil strife in general violence that's not the analysis the analysis is that the taleban is targeting mr hussein and the taleban this court has already found confined in kill in carry out supported killings through out time is done so  on i would respectfully submit that the petition for a view should be denied because substantial evidence supports the agency's findings in this case st that substantial evidence supports the determination that mr hussein failed to meet his burden of proof to show past st occasion because as your honour's were pointing out it's not the case that everywhere in the world where people are victims of sectarian strife or her violence that that general population is conferred with eligibility for asylum you have to show individualized what about what about maybe a stronger argument the wreckage significant evidence particularly from the country works that the pakistani government is unable to control  taliban and maybe like they just trying to act like they're going to but they're really not why should we find that the i erred and otherwise i mean there are so now in there they have been engaged in a campaign and it's true that combat in that the taliban well the fatalities and been reduced tenfold in that time so that would suggest a certain amount of effectiveness on the part of the pakistani government in combating the taliban didn't rely on that fact to suggest that correct they relied on they did they they relied on they said there was evidence in the record to suggest that the pakistani government had made great strides in their minorities and it's the country reports also cite the two thousand and fourteen military operation in the chair in the northwestern territory phase where they've seized weapons where they don't seem to rely as much on the national government for their local government policing except or it's more it's almost like a tribal where the town folks protect themselves in fact that seems like a story that's all about the  es to you if you read them it's almost like a martial law kind of situation there but it's the fact though is that although mr hussein did say that he believe that the national government did didn't protect that area the you know objective evidence in the country reports show that they have you know they launched a mass ration against the taliban which was has been  successful in terms of arrests and get you know seizing caches of weapons and reducing to fit allergies and in fact you know the fact of the matter is that although mr hussein  along with the rest of the population has over the years you know there have there have been terrorist attacks in which you know he and the rest of the population have been victimized by this he and his whole family have you know he remained there after the two thousand and seven market attack for another number of years and he wasn't physically harmed he remained there or his family remained there and after the convoy attack you were still remained there for another several years is that really there's like no detail whatsoever about what his position was in the past or on it doesn't say you know when he joined and what his position was what his duties were and as far as the threats are concerned it gives no information about what these threats were when they were how he was threatened it all there's no information about it at all it's just completely bare bones  another what we also have another question that actually relates not just this case but a lot of these immigration cases we get we have a situation where the government will point to the country or would says you know from these my perspective sitting here better they're really making the government really attempting to address like these problems that's true in this case and other case i think you both types of evidence are in the country or i never know what to do with that because what am i supposed to lose is the fact that things are getting better like is that sufficient what if they were really bad and now they're just bad right or or do we look at also can't tell from the country point where we're at right now it's always like they're bad but they're getting better i don't know indonesia where there was a situation where there is a group and they said you can't rely just on that the group is you know subject to you know  condition you have to have certain individual and evidence that you're going to be it to simply target and find out and and it's never been the case that you can just rely on civil strife or that there's a you know that things are bad in a particular place or country and not that there isn't a sort of a group category for for persecution or that there's eligibility for asylum improving that's the board's job to kind of make that calculation and give weight to that evidence about whether things are improving or not improving and the court reviews that for substantial evidence  your you would look at whether the evidence compels the conclusion that the board is wrong and that's my you know respectfully i would say in this case the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the board was dreaming that the evidence here shows that in pakistan that the government of pakistan is improving it to control the taliban ok and so i hear you on that and it makes a certain amount of sense especially what you say about the fact that you can't just look you know it's bad conditions generally you can't rely on it as to be something that's targeted at you but then it makes you wonder it well it did it does it give context to his testimony as to that gives meaning to what he's saying about his circumstances i suppose you i guess that would mean everybody would be eligible friends and then the entire country of pakistan it would just be a matter of who manages to make it to the united states and that's never been that's never been the the way that the asylum off unction and then you know anyone who comes here from a war torn restrikes ridden country is eligible for asylum just based on the fact that their their country is in bad shape based on civil strife they have to have you know that the definition of asylum has that in it what is laid out that you have to show that you have to you know you have to show an individual as well founded fear of persecution based on certain things burden and i think you're that turns on whether or not he suffered whether or not what happened is actually passed persecution is that right exactly yes if he if if we relocation factor will it be right if he if we were wrong on the past persecution then and would have to go back anyway of course and then we would also be wrong in the burden for past persecution i mean for the location having that of course yes i i think he's completely wrong and obviously that is completely overstating the court's case on what's required of the immigration judge in terms of laying out his whole asylum claim for him i think the behaved completely appropriate way because due process is not this free floating thing it's a crowded in the statute and the regulations and you know they set out what's required in accordance their burden of proof and he was advised of that he can apply and made the appropriate applications available as advised of his privilege of representation he and the j was like very careful he was given what about how does it provide the standard for asylum that seems to be their strong well that's not that's not the standard of asylum is set forth in the instructions for the application he was given the legal orientation of the detention center that he was given assistance from the legal orientation provider fill it out and and just sent it so that  process violations had to do with the alien or the i j failing to explain that the alien could present her own testimony like her formative testimony in failing to provide her an opportunity to respond to the government for under the unwilling unable to standard the correct analysis is whether or not the government keep control the taliban encroaching on that country why there is no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the government can control the correctly that the local townspeople drove away the taliban and they obviously did causing problems for five more years there are they they did they did earn is placed out what about that particular the way their government seems to be words the local government does that count your are that that that is not in the record it was actually friends here couper's who mr hussein is talking about and that is the national military and that is a really compelling piece of evidence actually that in the convoy attack he is being attacked while he's being escorted by the frontier corps itself meaning the taliban it's tax whatever submillimeter you support is there and in an attempt to control and there's no that this further proves ineffectiveness of control and so it and when you're asking it just didn't take about what do you do when you have a country reports that type what each way you look at the evidence that the petitioner provides the evidence the protests provide numerous articles saying that terrorism attacks impression or continue to happen none of those right and those articles were mentioned and then from two thousand and fifteen at the two thousand and sixteen country reports you'll see that there is no change  again and he said well they went away and then other people they attack back and so big so that sounds like there's some response there's a the fact that's not the federal government but it's like the local government