judge went into great lengths in giving a historical perspective of writing in the past twenty five years or so however none of that has any bearing on what happened to respond and in fact the documents the judge relied on to a great a great deal as stated previously on the state department report that goes no i'm like no but my question is more is narrower than that did you appeal the discretionary decision say that determination i believe so i think that committed to the discretion of the attorney general well this court has jurisdiction to order to review final previously goes to challenge the immigration judge's decision denying the application for asylum it is the immigration judge in this case does not provide any specific analysis he just merely states that there are six that live in other parts of india that respond in position in this persecution was repugnant here by the clear evidence of change country conditions and you say that on the ground that you believe that any claim with respect to asylum has been waive accustomed to seeing as the i j a says the person either eligible for us are a lot more not eligible for asylum and the exercise of discretion as to whether or not to grant is exercised after we're all finished with it and it  i've been also handling these cases for a long time i do see it occasionally i cannot tell you what percentage of cases it does happen and there were reasons and this record o that let the judge to that conclusion but here it's very clear that the state department country reports the status that seeks like mr saying do not have a reasonable basis for feel it appearing in religious persecution the state department country report in the records of the one that was released on march thirty first two thousand and three discussed inside the situation on the  the fear future persecution if he were to return and i don't see does that presumption at all make a difference in the analysis well our argument is that that presumption has been reported in this case by the country yes it seems to me that we have reached the end of the road for any withholding or indeed any asylum for six there is to say they can show that they have previously been  but all the government needs to do is to point to this report to say well that may be true but because change conditions in the country are start you know and we're saying we're sending you back is that right well at the heart say now when you say that what you point to beyond the country reports talking about the general conditions well the other reports on the record as amnesty international reports that you see that's all a general star that's not specific to this individual so you say listen the i j a did not only look at these reports but consider the individual situation of this particular person and where did the guy j do that with respect to this individual person  bring in now in a way we may be imposing an impossible burden on the i j i mean what's the i just posted with respect individual eyes to consideration beyond talking about ok this is what he claims happened to him these are now the country conditions but the burden we're asking is for is for ok not on what did happen to him but in light of the country conditions what will happen to him specifically as an individual not just country of course and i assume that you're not going to contest this sums moving outside the punjab will nonetheless leave the target of the indian government because of their past behavior whether this person will be i can't window but are we allowed to say the government has conceded that he is credible yes ok so we assume credibility then and not just when this goes back they say oh now we're going to change our mind and now we find is not credible you say that he has been for purposes of this case and from here forward he is credible for purposes of this case to this point we are making the argument that we are assuming has credibility but that means if we say well ok assuming credibility he nonetheless there's not been an individualized determination the board is then free to say oh well you know we're not going to put that question up again and we're going to find is not credible so the case is coming back to us again on credibility revisit the assumption and we're going to hold that he is not credible and then the case comes back up to us now on our own credibility grounds that was going to happen it's hard for me to speculate as to what might be raised to the board whether they will let me go with all of the yes then if we send them back on the assumption that it's credible if the board says ok we're now going to be visitors and we hold that he is not credible we agree with the i j a and if we then get a petition proview on that very question think you're saying i'm saying that the p i cannot change the credibility as to what happened up until the board at this point what happens if it does get sent back on remand that you know it depends if we would hold were the question presented to us that the adverse credibility finding must be reversed if we're going to do it sooner or later we might as well do it now if there's a possibility that the b i will take it on taking a back citizens are free to move about and relocate high profile individuals involved in the militancy are returning to india are not being abused beaten and tortured sikhs who have been