please the court i'm robert job and i'm appearing today on behalf of the petitioner cup for saying in this case the board of immigration appeals accepted that mr singh is a victim of past persecution on account of a protected ground and that he is therefore entitled to a presumption a future prosecution in order to rebut that presumption the government must present evidence that's on an individual lies basis r analysis the immigration judge offered a few reasons suggesting that the government had been its burden but they all relate to generalize country conditions there's no individualized analysis there either them immigration judge focused on the fact that the militant movement is no longer active in punjab this is on page eighty four of the administrative record but if you look at page seven twenty seven of the administrative record it makes clear it was a state department report that makes clear that  petitioner in this case was arrested and tortured in november of one thousand nine hundred six so the mere fact that the militancy had ended as the immigration judge points out that certainly doesn't suggest that this particular individual no longer has a well founded fear because he was arrested and tortured even after the end of the militancy the immigration judge also suggested that there been some accommodation he says reached between the sikh community and the congress party well that may be true but that doesn't include a collie dom on the party to which this individual blogged that party persists and calling for an independent c state there's no accommodation between that separatist party and the congress party and this is important obviously because there's evidence in the record that the party to which this petition are belonged and actively supported continues to face persecution at the hands of the indian government none of this evidence however was grappled with by the board or the quote making an inflammatory speech way back in one thousand nine hundred one page pages three thirty four and three thirty six of the record there are news articles indicating that the government of india had quote a major crackdown against mr singh's political party so clearly the accommodation at the immigration judge is describing it doesn't affect this particular petition or the most important evidence of that is probably set forth in the record with regard to whether mr the indian authorities are still looking for mr singh now if you look at the board's decision they drop a footnote here that says that  the affidavit from mr singh's wife doesn't suggest that the indian police are still reading the house and the board forced points to certain testimony suggesting the police have stopped coming in asking for bribes while if you look at that section of the record and this is pages two twenty nine to thirty one it's true that mr singh testified to the police of steps looking for bribes but he never indicated the police stopped coming actually he said the opposite what he said on page two twenty nine is that police come to our house and ask my wife as to where is cup or sang the much of this particular exchange is indecipherable in the transcript but the immigration judge summarizes it on page three thirty one of the record where he says that the police are still coming but they're not asking for bribes well if the police are still coming to this individual's house well that seems to be the most important fact with regard to whether he has a continuing fear of persecution but neither the immigration judge nor the big board of immigration appeals ever grappled with it they didn't engage in the sort of individualized analysis that they were required to do now the government relies on certain evidence of country conditions here suggesting that as a general matter sikhs are not persecuted that may well be true but our claim here is not that sikhs are persecuted our claim is that this particular individual as an active member of a particular political party that is continuing to call  but they didn't cite to any evidence or there's absolutely no discussion at all so there was really nothing for us to try to rebut what they're supposed to deal with they did so the issue was presented they made a conclusion the conclusion was wholly unsupported by yeah i think so i'm not on the issue of countrywide persecution you know i think you could go either of two ways on that because both the immigration judge and the boring did assert that the petition that the government had met its burden of showing that he could relocate so that issue was dealt with explicitly by both the immigration judge and the board the problem in both cases is that neither one actually cited to any evidence at all and neither one provided any analysis to support it's their conclusion i guess our threshold position would be no i mean the threshold position before the court should be is that is the board's conclusion on that point was supported by substantial evidence if not we would argue for reversal our secondary position would be that at a minimum they have to give an individualized analysis they have to give a rational explanation for their conclusion and they haven't done that so at a minimum obviously reman would be required because substantial evidence in the record supports the agency's the terminations that by demonstrating change country conditions in india the government rebutted the presumption that petitioner will suffer future persecution and petitioner could reasonably avoid future harm by relocating within india now did they deal with his individualized situation they did your honor in fact the immigration judge conducted an individualized analysis did not simply rely on generalized country conditions it was analysis of how changes in the punjab region specifically related to the situation between c political organizations and those who advocated for an independent state of callus and such as petitioner and the central government of india in the congress high party where do we find them in the record i believe it's page eighty five of persecuted if they could get a hold of them the fact that the movement has quit doesn't mean that the individual is safe yes your honor by combined with the evidence that that the immigration judge recognise that there are still individuals punjab region who advocate for collars on those individuals benefit from a constitution that permits peaceful demonstration and that though it specifically suggests that the government is permitting those those located on page two hundred sixty to eighty seven which is the united states country report and page two forty seven which is the country report from the united kingdom last night again it's two forty seven year on and that's the united kingdom country report and that individuals who still seek counsel stand who still petition for calloused and benefit from the fact that that peaceful demonstration is permitted and to get specifically the petitioners claimed that that he was  persecuted by the police the country reports specifically the u k country reports indicate that investigations of human rights abuses have sent a strong signal that the climate of impunity for the police have has ended or is ending and that the government in respect to relocation the government is required to look to individuals social situations family where there are jobs none of that the in a constitution in constitution guarantees the right to move freely throughout the territory that punjabi speaks in particular are able to relocate to another part of india and their city communities all over india states that the c communities are generally urban and prosperous and in particular would have no more problem finding educational opportunities for their children finding employment opportunities than any other individual who relocates within india specifically against a petitioners claimed that he was persecuted by the police the country reports and specifically the u k country reports state that there are no checks on newcomer to any part of india arriving from another part of india and that the local police have neither the language abilities nor the resources to conduct background checks and finally on that point it states that a high profile person might not be able to move elsewhere but that a low profile person would have no problem doing so and petitioner himself testified that he does not consider himself to be a high profile person  immigration judge and the board give any consideration to this humanitarian claim now your honor they did not and indeed that claim was not fairly exhausted before the board it appears the petitioner cited the matter of and their appeal to the board but they did so as boilerplate in the section relating to a well founded fear of future persecution the board dealt with everything raised by petitioner in their position or in the brief to the board including the credibility determination but did not deal with the humanitarian thing because it was not raised and there was no effort to actually argue that the petitioner was eligible for such relief and again it appears only in the section relating to a well founded fear of persecution with no effort whatsoever of development of that issue and your honor you would mentioned earlier the the issue of withholding of removal of protection and the convention against torture whether the agency dealt with those issues as well and indeed they did the the more specifically from the immigration judge's decision including the denial  petitioners applications for withholding of removal and protection of the convention against torture that's on page two of the record is the first full paragraph of the force decision if you look at page or you need to see any discussion of it to say going through i didn't find anything other than the conclusion that explain i understand how the logic flows by ordinarily we get a recitation as to why you lose on one the other dominoes fall and i didn't find anything that provided that here  they affirm the immigration judge decision as on page eighty five of the record which is the immigration judges decision immigration judge specifically states that the change country conditions in india were sufficient to indicate that there was no longer a reasonable possibility that petitioner would be persecuted much a clear probability or real likelihood that he would be persecuted that's what holding up removal and or tortured in india and that's convention against torture yes you're on and turns in terms of what it is a consideration of withholding removal and the convention against torture and again you're on this the immigration judge specifically handled the situation of withholding the protection of the convention based on the evidence of change country conditions and that's explicitly in the record there are no more further questions your honor just like to reiterate that the courts are denied a petition for review because substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusions thank you very much i'm somewhat amused by the government's presentation because well i found it very good none of it none of it except for two points are actually set forth in the board's decision or the immigration judge's decision and those two points relate to the elevation of m before the court to say that rank and file members of groups that were once a target are now safe but it goes on to say and this is at page two forty six that there are exceptions such as people with the local history of abuse at the hands of the police and militants together with their close relatives and supporters who continue to be follow this potential seize for further rebellion the documents that the government's relying on specifically describe the exception that pertains to arrival in india would certainly lead to prosecution wherever the in the in citizen landed or went afterwards now this is important because it's undisputed that the indian police have repeatedly accused this petition of quote harboring terrorists that's at pages one sixty four one eighty eight and one eighty nine and it's also undisputed that individuals once they're taking into custody are routinely tortured by the indian government after all this individual was tortured on three separate occasions now these are not facts that can be simply ignored if the immigration judge is going to engage in a proper analysis here he can't just cherry pick and point to a few points about general changes in country conditions he has to link those general changes to the specific applicant before him none of that happened here and there's very strong evidence that this particular african remains at risk the agency has to deal with that it's not for the court of appeals to deal with that when oil comes in and makes these arguments to the court of appeals the immigration judge and the board of immigration have to deal with it and then you have to review their reasoning it's not appropriate for the board in the i j a to simply point to general changes in country conditions and then for oil to come in and make its case