that there was still lots of political violence in bangladesh at at the time it also stated that there was violence within political parties within the same faction there continued to be violence in bangladesh and also supported the petitioners accounts of police refusing to take police reports or acknowledge his complaints so i would argue that although the country conditions had changed there to the country condition report still acknowledge that there were political there was pull lots of political violence even within the same of politics testimony there was violence between his party and that the b n p and the awami league that that is just part of that culture of the bangladesh is that these parties  told about it it does say that there is fighting within the same political faction however it doesn't say anything about the the conditions in the country the countryside area it doesn't say anything about that but i believe it's the burden of the government to show that the country conditions have changed such that he can go back to did say he could relocate however the birthplace tangle is just sixty miles from the area where he was politically active for ten years with the jetty a party he does have a sister and brother who lives there however he did indicate in his testimony that he didn't keep very good contact with them sixty miles is not a very long distance and he had been out of the country for for ten years government also compared this case to garcia hernandez however i believe there are a lot of differences between garcia hernandez and this case in garcia hernandez the petitioner was guatemala where peace accords had come to light since that time also the country report was a lot more specific it said that only hire members of political parties were still persecuted and so the evidence that the government gave the new country report for guatemala was a lot more specific than the country report that was given for this case and  quickly appearing on behalf of the respondent the train general united states i'd like to go to straight to the change country conditions in this case and i'd like to emphasize that that the change country conditions that were provided in the state department's times report aren't read in isolation that it's important to recognize the individual set of circumstances of mr rahman in this case when you're looking at those and this is the this is the place we are with that with what the immigration judge actually found that mr rahman had been a low level official of his party in fact he'd been with what's called a joint official and as a joint official what he would do is he would get the place ready for the meetings somebody else would run it he would take care of the office before him ok now he stopped doing this when he left the country back and back in one thousand nine hundred seventy and so it's now been it's now been ten years since that time so we have a low level party official who's been away for ten years who now says they have no interest  and being a part of that party anymore they have not been a part of that party anymore they haven't paid any attention to what's going on in that country anymore and they're able to relocating to another place within bangladesh so in that context where they're looking at the state department country report which says that yes there is some violence between the parties but most of the violence described in the in the country reports is one a is one of two different types the first  political violence in demonstrations large groups of people out in public advocating on behalf of their party it's political violence demonstrations rallies and that's the first like the second type also details in the country port is i corruption its and its local level officials go after a particular individual and usually they're seeking money but that's what's details in the country courts even with what he had claimed before which was never a stablished his past persecution it was just sort of assumed there was never any actual holding on past persecution even then the actual threat was if you read his asylum application it was you must leave the city when he comes to the testimony is that he has to leave the country there was never any any indication of that he would have to leave the party he would they wanted money from him or nothing of that sort his circumstances don't fit what was in the state department country report ok about the potential violence there could be if you was to return right now now true but he had all the other information coming in which all applied to it and he was he and he knew that and so when he looked at the country conditions he's thinking i have this low level official who was really exactly happened here mr rahman is responsible as well i can't really explain it and then he would just make a few he would say that it was once or twice every three or four months he said it was a group of students again from the school  he was a little vague on that but then other than the one instance where he was hit across the legs below the knees there was never any particular i had this happen to me i went to the hospital because of this so that's  that his that that he was correct he has to come he has to show that the record evidence as it was put in record before the immigration judge compels the conclusion that country conditions to have not changed since the time when standard and i did just like to mention that the same standard also applies to the internal relocation and in this case mr rahman it in order to prevail has to meet the compelling evidence standard on both the internal also in the country report on the ca r one thirty nine the third paragraph down it does say violence often resulting in deaths was a pervasive element in the country's politics supporters of different political parties and often supporters of different factions within one party frequently clashed with each other and with police during rallies and demonstrations although it was a low level official he did organize political meetings and events he wasn't just hit with a rod on his leg his store was also burned down and it was also broken into and the things inside the store destroyed so he did describe incidences of persecution he also described that these were thugs from the political parties from the school and that if you reported these incidences and that nothing was done about them well i believe that we need to look to the saying it case of turning a blind eye or acquiescence and reporting such an incident and not having the police act on that  that it's turning a blind eye that's acquiescing it's not wanting to go after these people because of the political party they're involved and the government ruling party in objective looking at did find that the petitioner's testimony was a credible and the police responded to him and said that we don't want to take any any cases against the government that's what they said to him  whether he in the record established whether they could have done something to these people based on names given that sort of thing i'm not sure but it police reports are or should be taken even if it's just a description of what the person looks like going to the school looking into what's going on you know photo lineups that sort of thing so just not doing anything is turning a blind eye