which were aggravated felonies and so he was statutorily ineligible for asylum the only thing he could apply for was withholding because the statute precludes one from applying for asylum if they have an aggravated felony conviction with regard to withholding or half the standard is whether or not the conviction whether it even if it is for twenty five years he talked about the fact that if he returned that as a native pakistani if he had returned to pakistan after all this time he would be considered a spy for the for for that statement really he says he had said that it was based on his research if i if you are asking whether he specifically gave details should have asked what do you base that on and they did assessed and she didn't she simply said this is what he said there's nothing in the record that supports this well there was and it needed to be acknowledged and it needed to be addressed so you're talking about the analysis section where she said  did state that based on his experience and his research that he felt that it was more likely than not i think you put the odds at ninety percent that mr shams would be both subject as as he testified the fact that he's been here so long has affected how he how he carries himself how he speaks how he walks how he talks he will different doctor by testified that pakistan is a very tribal country and that as it as also a close knit muslim country unlike the united states people know your business and you pen in los angeles you can live here never know your neighbor in pakistan everybody knows you were away where you were that you've come back and so even without mr sharma statements that he is going to act differently they're going to know that he's come back and that he was in the united states for all of these years it wasn't a secret  but he's been here for over twenty five years he was fifty three the time that we were in court so he was in his twenty's he's been here for probably close to thirty years at this point  but that's not what we're here about her her decision and i may be wrong but i didn't think that she that that she gave that tremendous weight because it had been many years earlier it had been in the ninety's and i think there were four times in the early two thousand and he had said that he'd been there for no more than two or three weeks at a time and he went to see his family  and dr goodbye testified that things had gotten worse in two thousand and one after nine eleven but that they had gotten much more severe in the year prior to the hearing giving essentially a summary of what he says he's learned by through his research and why isn't that evidence his opinion is basically a form of  report to be sufficient given that the country conditions materials and their records could not adequately address have pakistanis who returned after living in the united states or the west for an extended period of time are treated that seems to me to say that that unless it's in  what was supposed to be the basis for his opinion and yet he never cited a single one of those interested in his report for his own testimony he just never made a link and as such what i was asking earlier is question of first what his testimony goes products of where we grew up to so easy here in the united states for twenty five years we want people to come here to this this evidence from i mean you may not be familiar with we see it all the time these gang experts who testify in criminal case and they come in and they saying you know i'm an expert because i've you know done a lot of stuff with