i'd like to reserve three minutes for about oh this is an immigration case involving the convention against torture codified in a court of federal regulations commonly called cat for short well in this case for my crimes to be granted relief dismissed it basically because he had not established that it was a member of a recognizable group or were already in society so good that information had not been necessary on the subject of murder well no argument is if his testimony sound credible and the reasonable person weighs his credible testimony together with the expert is the evidence of record can lead to only one reasonable conclusion no reasonable person could look at this record say you know we think you may be at risk but that doesn't mean it's  get to that i want to stick on the substance here because at one point you seem to argue that nothing in the record indicates combat training of it seems to turn the burden of proof on its head right isn't it incumbent on you and your client to show not that the government needs to show that he's not being sought but that no reasonable person could conclude anything except that he's going to be put in a position where he's killed interesting out or maybe it's not frank quitely obviously we understand the burden it's ayers but it show that he will not be called as it was in there you just put your finger on it since you have you have to crew i mean this is were we were assessing a wifely good right right that's the that's the job we've got at this point is assessing the likelihood assessing the likelihood we have a very deferential standard and look at how the b i e excess the likelihood is it the case that no reasonable person could assess the likelihood differently than your client did in saying he is or isn't going to be called to be a witness and then it's on you folks to make the point that no reasonable person could assess that likelihood in a way other than you've assessed it which is that he will certainly because that's that's the burden you're bearing isn't it yes ok i understand they are bit at the same time if we were to show for example that that there there is a plea out and he and he has been sought you know as a witness in the trial and that makes the case stronger but the fact that there is not one does presented and i would argue that the evidence presented by the expert is not generalized not generalized contributions actually she testified a dependent of my client's testimony that the focal brothers do in fact exist and they have ties to hiring official mere well what would impress the board of immigration appeals if this fax doesn't appeal to them when you've got somebody who the i j a finds credible and the doesn't dispute that in any way they accept the credibility of the media and he tells a story of being involved in under cover best the cation of corruption at the highest levels  him but the government accepted all that but he said everything came from him this is mr guy was this point i take it which is how can the only way to read the conclusion is to say you said he was believable but you really don't think he's fully able where he's credible incredible he's not at issue here ok so if you accept these believable and that the stories told is true then  how how was it that you don't except i guess some put on trying to push it to meet head on her argument which i understand to be there's a fundamental disconnect either he's believable and if he's believable he's told tale were rational people would fear for their life's work he's not believable which is how so attack that argument head on if you would rather it has to do with specificity to him and even though he's credible and past persecution right we're talking about can't claim and whether it's more likely than not he'll be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the albanian government and his assertion is there is going to be acquiescence in  now if you believe them how do you get to you but you're ok if you go back but that's what i understand them to be driving that hard but i'm hoping you'll be able to explain to us why you have to worry about that there's a reason not to worry even if you accept his argument or his story you don't have to worry reasonable people could say he's not going to be at risk in the torture analysis you do consider but i doubt there was he can string together this series of hypothetical saying that this may happen yes to show he had to prove everything was more likely than not going to happen and you can't meet your burden of proof or cap i just i mean that's not a hypothetical that's a historical fact if you ride with the once reporting to mr taj we discovered that he was dead i'd be pretty fearful wouldn't you that's true but then you have to look at the record as a whole and if someone was really scared would he go to the race riots on his own past work and then voluntarily come back using his passport if everybody was out to get him all the time so that if you look at the record as a whole even though he was found credible that somebody cuts his this is assume that he thinks going going italy coming back somehow puts it at risk what's the logic there what is it about going third circuit and what and how they place it to was at the board finally the process by upholding the immigration judges finding so it's kind of a confused point but because he didn't exhaust any  question you have to show that no reasonable person could disagree that the outcome should be different than what the government said that's a that's a very high standards and it  you recognize that we're operating with that standard as to the factual assessment of the likelihood of the torture how is the government wrong in saying yes there are certainly evidence in mr  supervisor's favor but look at these three categories and you heard me you reflect them back what i've heard mr hurley say what you take those on directly if you would those why is it that those three categories of evidence or lack which is there is no meaningful consideration of the evidence i am not asking them and she won a nest of them agree with me and obviously a reasonable person would agree with me but if you do is tell me why and therefore set the record so th therefore no no future harm and decide to cases that say you know there is no evidence specific to respond it it seems to me that there at the requiring us to a higher burden there was something with his name on it when his testimony was how credible right why would we have to show something with his name or corroborate his credible testimony that he wasn't back before noon to cover work for the time to much to me you know that that's holding us to to a higher standard and regarded we should true that the government brought out we did