policy i believe the judge made her decision based on three main issues centering specifically around and arrest that took place in one thousand nine hundred nine i soon found that a speech that he had claimed he was going to make would have taken place on a date other than the date that he had indicated she also found that he was arrested but there are reasons that he gave why the police arrested him were contradictory and finally she found that an event that took place in the year two thousand  going to give a speech on a particular stage known as adar by stage and that was a stage set up by his party for his party members the events calendar that the government proffered only list of events that were scheduled on the official the second issue was the arrest the actual arrest that took place in the media a problem there came a point where they the immigration judge felt that mr singh had testified that the police arrested him so that he would be prevented from the police arrested him so that he would be an example so that other individuals would not come forward and participate politically as he had done  then found that mr singh changed this testimony and said that he had been arrested so that he would be prevented from speaking about this she found that to be a  contradiction i believe the rest reflects that mr singh only mentioned that if he were arrested and if that arrests were made public other individuals would be intimidated or placed in fear and would therefore refrain from counsel that we had two different the contradiction was that was that the police told him to tell people after the after the ninety seven not not so much to tell people but you know to sort of say you know go back show your folks this is what happens when you behave this way i believe what happened during the ninety seven arrest was he was told he was told if you continue this is what happens i believe during questioning from both the id and on cross examination the point came up as to what the police motivation was  questioning that he simply he conceded if people were made aware of this that i'd been arrested in the street in such a fashion it would probably cause people to refrain from participating like this in the future and from that point on then the questioning was going on repeatedly as to why he would say on the one hand he was told not to publicize this arrest and on the other hand he was told she was arrested because he was being prevented from publiciz the speech they did raise all actually two family homes searching for him after he gave the speech so i don't think that inconsistency is or contradictions that the i j pointed out actually the responsibility or can be attributed to mr sing why he would be singled out among the hundreds of other speakers and presenters at this celebration he testified that the police wanted to use him as an example of people to discourage them from participating in such rallies why second arrest that could taint the first arrest but to make an alternative finding that even assuming the first arrest happened it didn't establish eligibility for asylum did they dispute the fact that he claims that you know he claimed he was beaten when he was arrested the first time that the government them but ultimately there's you know we're talking about burden this back and forth here that i don't remember seeing anything in the record that where there was a specific refutation about the nine hundred ninety seven arrest you are you aware of any  fines for people to hold the rallies and encourage them to go what is a country report if it's in the record in this case to your knowledge say about this particular group of sikhs if it says anticipating persecution or mistreatment and india and again that gets to the alternative vijay finding that even assuming that the first arrest occurred on their word change country conditions of perspective his political party in india and a past persecution the i just how the alternative finding that i thought i'm of this is the documentary evidence of the time of the asylum hearing did show that his particular subgroup was doing fine in india and that i was not a basis to fear future persecution at the time of his asylum hearing and the government would rely on it if the court does have troubles with the obvious credibility ruling on that attorney finding you have a cite in the record you can give to us that from the country report or something that would substantiate what you just said because at least my understanding from the record of my own just general knowledge is the same as judge noonan's about this subgroup by i think they remain implacably hostile to the indian and that is thus not a ground francis a painting prosecution or mistreatment in india well i understand that that's just a conclusion but what does it say about the interrelationship of that group and the government you know just the conclusory statement that you read there that's kind like part of your brief where is there a or is there a fact an allegation of fact in the country report or some other authoritative information or quasar authoritative information that says that this particular subgroup of militant subgroup that is implacably opposed by religious creed as i understand it to be indian government has changed its views and is now past pacific recently should be the government ok