bruised and unable to walk he was stabbed twice had his hands and feet tied to a tree as he was being beaten by the rod and the stabbing left him with permanent scars that required his injuries apart house by station for three days and seven to eight however the record does not support that conclusion that he remained quote unaffected at all it does support that he continued his work and that he continued his political activities but it does not it does there's nowhere in the record that shows how long it took him to get back to his activities it does say that he returned home after his hospitalization of three days but there after there is no questioning and there's no evidence in the record that shows how long it took him could have taken him a year or maybe up to two years to get back to normal activity now in a similar situation in dollars that's for twenty one f third for seventy three this court reversed the in that case where the i j a found that that was not affected by the one incident of violence against her because she remained in the house where the attack happened and she continued her job there as a housekeeper now this court reversed saying that her decision not to flee mediately does not mean she was not persecuted the situation is similar here the attack was serious enough and had an imminent danger of death in fact before leaving the attackers gave him a death threat saying that the next time they will kill him  here also petitioner was stabbed multiple times which could have killed him had an imminent risk of death in this attack as for and in addition this was not an isolated incident two years later attack and the call occurred against a backdrop of other local leaders in the nepali congress party being targeted by the malice party targeted meaning they were kidnapped and being killed petitioner testified about two of his friends whom this happened to who  kidnapped and killed he also listed a number of people in his declaration whom he knew who similar things have happened to and they were also from an appellate congress party neither that i didn't or the board took this into account  and although the call happened two years after the attack it does not mean it was an isolated incident and certainly together with the attack in the heart of that position are facing both of these incidents rises to a level of persecution  the second reason why the government sorry why the agency deny petitions application was that they sound that the government in nepal was able to protect him because there was a police investigation that was started  however the i j a and the board speculate that or basically have no evidence of assuming that the investigation was carried out in good faith the investigation that happen and the government was controlled by the mao's party and in this context the police had no incentive to really go after the people who were attacking the maoist opponents i mean who are the right who are attacking the mou department report in the record to thirty six states that maoists are believed to be involved in one hundred seventy under assault disappearances and the government had not prosecuted any malice for their involvement as of the date of that writing so the government if persecution he did meet his burden of showing that his fear of future persecution is well founded given the objective country conditions evidence in the record regarding ongoing lie of modest violence and is credible testimony regarding the severe harm he faced in the past there's a reasonable possibility that he will be persecuted in the future conduct absolutely no analysis on the issue of future persecution and the board determined that there is no evidence that anybody is targeting petition even though it did recognize that he was arrested his wife was receiving anonymous calls and his father was accosted by maoist who wanted to know about petitioners whereabouts given these two facts given the context in the objective country reports any reasonable fact find woods would find that petitional had a reasonable rate reasonable fear of future persecution if he was forced to return to nepal consul i thought i thought evidence i was suggesting the board specifically focused on this something like you are not sure where that is in the record but this is the current conditions as opposed to the conditions that prevailed at the time  even if that is the case i would have to submit that i that the maoists party has not been taken into has not been brought under control that the violence still continues i police was called were called and the first time the four after he was attacked and given the fact that he that no nothing resulted from that there was no outcome it was entirely reasonable for him to assume that if such a severe attack led to no outcome accorded one more for the attorney general your honor substantial evidence to support the agency's denial of each of the petitioners applications for from protection specifically mr wetmore just a m can you see mr whitmore i cannot you are i can't see him now i can see you can you hear him can you hear him yes i can hear hear yes i can hear yes thank you all right you are numerous cases here that are almost on point discussing instances where there was a single isolated act of physical mistreatment that did not in fact result in any prolonged harm we decided those are brief i won't mistreatment it's his burden to show that and he simply didn't put that evidence in the record when asked he said after he left the hospital after three days he returned to his political activities and his farm in minutes if you want to put in any additional evidence with regard to any mistreatment you know after effects of that mistreatment lingering effects it's his burden to do so he failed to do so that argument was also not raised below and therefore was not exhausted  it's also completely undisputed that the individuals who mistreated the petitioner were quote common citizens they were private individuals and the government the nepali government made substantial efforts to look for these individuals in fact they instituted investigation commission your honour's were correct the petitioner never actually called the police in fact the police came on their own accord after seeing a press release by the party and at that point came and interviewed him in the hospital petitioner conceded that he never actually gave them a physical description of his attackers he did not recognize them he didn't know who they were and he merely told them that he believed that they were from this maoist youth party at that point the political party put pressure on the police they form the the investigative committee and when asked whether he was satisfied with this investigation petitioner said i quote satisfied it was satisfactory to my knowledge and belief so there's no indication as the police as i understood it invest interviewed him in the hospital right that's correct and he was in the hospital for three days three days so they acted relatively quickly you know that the access acted expeditiously they came in they investigated they form the committee and they really had nothing to go on in that they didn't have the descriptions of the individuals when asked if you followed up with the police made any additional effort to catch these folks petitioner says no he never followed up and as this court is held before if the police make an effort even if they don't catch the individuals that does not show that they are unwilling or unable to  tackle this problem then two years go by he goes back to his exact same situation goes back to farming he goes back to his political activities absolutely nothing happens so he did express some concern that if  went further with the police in two thousand and eight that he might yes reprisal the evidence clearly shows that wasn't the case and his fear was completely unfounded then out of the blue as he states he suddenly received a phone call the individual identifies himself a identifies the office from which he's fallen and makes him a threat that in ten days we may physically harm you if you don't switch sides he doesn't report this to the police he doesn't report the party the party is is in power at the time the rector clearly establishes that and he made no effort whatsoever to allow the police to go and knock on this person's door they knew where to find him they knew who this individual was and there were ten days for for them to go ahead and you know abrogate any sort of harm that he potentially faced instead he elected to leave the countries and tens of thousands of dollars travelling on a sort of cross continental drift and ultimately show up on the mexican border and he simply could have called the police it's his obligation to do so they have to have a chance in this case because he didn't give them that chance and because they clearly show that they are willing to do something to combat these malice the country conditions say the exact same thing he failed in his burden to demonstrate it's all to go with you for asylum as well as withholding of removal and the country conditions in fact demonstrate that if you want to two thousand and two united nations high commission of human rights report that is in the record of pitch to ninety nine that indicates that the carter center found broad consensus that incidents of political violence remain political space in nepal has opened up since the two thousand and eight constituent assembly elections and that the political parties were generally able to conduct petitioner's party in the poli congress as it was in two thousand and ten when this other incident allegedly occurred and it was shortly after in two thousand and eight as the maoists resigned their position and in the polling congress took the prime ministership the court