he put on an expert karen parker he testified among other things that so he would likely be tortured sent to the i j a found her testimony credible but gave it reduced weight and we've raised two arguments on this point one procedural and one that's a better argument than arguing about the act well i think that's i think that's a great argument as well you know and i mean i think that there are whole issues here and that yes the likelihood of torture and i can skip ahead and talk about that his father now i think let me ask you another question about there yes the idea of the ever say they were disk downing's soltys testimony or any of his declarations because of that it was credible and she gave it full evidentiary weight with regard to discount testimony by other evidence in the record by giving so the full evidence  testified that you ten samples he attacked you testified that he attends rallies he testified that he supports the calloused and referendum two thousand and twenty which is a non governmental referendum to establish an independent sikh state and ultimately he testify that he is a part of the the palestine movement and that he intends to remain a part of it an advocate for it if sent to india and that's if they are sixty six and again that testimony was found credible so it must be taken as true now in concluding that he was not calloused and given that testimony that she found credible and that now must be taken as true i think she simply got it wrong as i mentioned he testified that he is an advocate and there is no evidence to the contrary  sikhs are likely to be targeted and i don't think it's disputed that or it can be disputed that sony is politically active i think that advocating for calloused and is a political activism but regardless of what the record shows generally with regard me ask you question which i think is and were you're going find someone credible and yet conclude that the country conditions do not support his or claim  i suppose they could but in this case the i j a even full evidentiary waits and i think that implies that she's crediting everything he says now like i said the country conditions i'll concede there is some mixed evidence there there based on his father's advocacy this court has held that this alone can be sufficient to grant deferral the removal and that's the figure they ask you a question about the expert so what's the significance of the fact that the same expert who gave roughly the his claim really rests on a series of suppositions and that i am my father's son therefore i will be tortured when i returned india but he as the g found is not in the same position as his father was st of all petitioner has not been there for thirty years obviously never advocated for the calloused and movement while he was there as he left as a child no outward evidence such that the indian government would be aware of his feeling or intention or advocacy upon his return i like of that he went to gatherings around his on some occasion i guess i'm trying to figure out how the i j a can come to this conclusion and it be supported by substantial evidence  soltys credible testimony well his credible testimony has to be considered with all the evidence i mean just because well i understand that right so just because i didn't  evidence is there that the r j can rely on to discount this credible testimony well the government suggests that what he what the titian are what's forth is still a it's not in the record even looked at those even looked at what the parents did the i j was aware and noted that the parents that the father specially was the subject of  torture by the indian government and distinguish the father the parents because the father is someone who was active in the country as a college professor he had students over  influencing perhaps a younger generation something that the indian government would be particularly interested in petitioner by contrast hasn't been in the country in thirty years so to say as the  about to say is i liken it to a say a chinese national who says well i intend to go back to my country and have five children with my wife when i get back and the government will find out about that and they'll torture me because of it i am the petitioner is it i have sounds like a great argument except it seems to me the i j doesn't have to go through every article every news piece every photograph that's not so your honor they don't have to write about and mention every single piece of evidence so long as they address you know the claim itself in a full some matter and i would suggest that this i just written decision which is broken down and each individual piece is going through country conditions going through the testimony going through the expert is a fairly small so much  the jesus of the claim and why she decided that the record does not come does not meet the standard for cat protection and if i just i have a tough absolutely ignores what the parents said and what he said and he is credible right but it also doesn't your honor is not taking into account other evidence in the record objective evidence that titian or submit that says no when someone comes back as i say a return to society so long as they don't have a criminal record in that kind of tree which obviously he doesn't because he hasn't been there in thirty years that no they're not targeted in any way and i would draw a distinction your honor between you know the local police and you know the national government of india when he enters the country there are expert could not produce anything concrete no corroboration for her testimony that there's a watch list and indeed her evidence conflicts with other petitioner evidence that nothing they're not targeted if i could just so was one of the st was the rejection of the sole revenge for just money based on the your honour's to look at the board's petitioners before to brief i would suggest that he did not raise this issue to the board specifically about this other i j decision in fact it came out after of this case was closed so there are it was not raised to the board and i would suggest that he failed to exhaust it with respect to the board's this other saying no matter which by the way we don't know what was in that record and i would also suggest that the i j a in this case one of the reasons that she did not give full weight to her evidence or balanced it accordingly with all the evidence which is for obligation is because it was inconsistent with some evidence that puts forth not just the credentials aspect which really goes to whether or not she should've been qualified as an expert in the st place there's nothing like a say the same thing in the a j say the same thing in the other case that the record evidence was inconsistent with the expert no no i re read the i well i was looking at the board's decision summarizing why in the board said it did not mention the inconsistency with the evidence but you know even if it did your honor i would suggest that this is not even a a purview for a court of appeals i mean you have a juror say for instance it was a jury which got a fact finder just as you have the immigration judge is a fact finder you know once you have you know as an expert is no different from any other witness except if permitted to they can upon on the ultimate issue in the case but their testimony is wait a bit but you know the jury jury verdicts are pretty opaque they don't go witness by witness and say whether we believe this and we don't these decisions aren't opaque they're not supposed to be right with well all the records i mean it would be pretty obvious say for example if you have a medical examiner that says ruling out that was a homicide but then you have eyewitness testimony that say it's an accident and then the jury finds them not guilty so that would suggest that they discounted or did not credit the expert witness the the the  medical examiner i mean there are that's just an example but i'm saying i don't think that getting this is necessarily a purview for a court of appeals to look at how a judge finder in this case wait is evidence so long as they considered the evidence which clearly she did and went through in detail what she found you know the weaknesses were the lack of you know you know watch list what about you know see the from the cross examine from the d a d h s counsel what about a watch which are if you have one do you how do you know he's going on one and i mean and the and the fact about is her statements were very conclusory oh well they'll know they'll know he's back they'll know and they'll do this that the other pure speculation honestly petitioner's attire argument is purely speculative testified that he fears torture coming back ms gnomic said that the experts are not addressed the distinction between national and local officials but this is the exact same this is the exact same reason she