did not meet his burdens of proof or asylum in withholding are not supported by substantial evidence in the record by my count the immigration judge ignored at least nineteen documents that were submitted into the record the judge focused on two documents the two thousand and one state department country report pertaining to to sudan and another magazine article relying on the two thousand and one state department report that just concluded that christians in the south of sudan worship freely and concluded that the state department report supported the finding that there were only episodic incidents of violence directed at christians in the south of sudan if the immigration judge had considered the full two thousand and one state department report the judge which should have also made findings that the state department was reporting that supporters and suspected supporters of the s p l i am in the s p l a the sudanese people's liberation  people's liberation army an organization that picture father in two older brothers were associated with and were killed as a result of their association or respond and actually petition to believe his father and brothers were were would you argue in the face of this evidence that it was wrong for the i j a not to win for by the fact that the association that your client would not have been petitioner daniel does not know well the circumstances of his father and his older brother's deaths he was fifteen or sixteen year old years old the time this was happened he was living in khartoum in the capital of the sudan when he was taken out of the country in one nine hundred eighty five so this is old information so i would say what the immigration judge did wrong here he should have taken that into consideration but i think the primary source of evidence indicating that  maybe i misunderstood your argument i thought i heard you urging us to conclude that by virtue of his familial ties to the helium that he would be viewed as a civilian supporter of the in the south of sudan as one of the worst human rights situation in the world and that this sudanese government's most brutal treatment is reserved for black christians the immigration judge ignored that evidence those particular findings by the u s department of state are not in the two thousand and one state department report there instead in the department of state country profile for asylum seekers from sitting on a report that the state department prepares specifically to facilitate immigration judge in the judges and their education of asylum applications from countries that produce large numbers of asylum seekers so the immigration the government appropriately correctly points out in its papers that the state that this court has recognized at the state department is the authoritative source for assessing state conditions of human rights violations in countries from which individuals are seeking asylum the judge cherry picked to go back to paraphrase from the two thousand and one country condition report and the judge totally ignored the state department's country profile for asylum claims from from the sudan if he hypothetically if the reasonableness of relocation i think the immigration judge actually did do that in addition to ignoring the what we believe this is the substantial evidence and the record that compels an alternate factual findings but the immigration judge did specifically fears is the government when the government is the persecute or there is a presumption rebuttable presumption but a presumption that the government can reach that individual anywhere in the country and even if that presumption can be overcome this court also has said it has to be shown that it would be reasonable to expect the asylum seeker to go to that safe haven in that particular area of the country and we think it is the immigration judge did not make evidence argument that i'm making he didn't consider i think the state department of human rights other human rights documentation the record indicating that it is not safe for him a decision only even if we put aside even if it is a hypothetically a safe haven is it reasonable family and he has been established that he has had no clue he had left home when he was five years old and he doesn't know for a fact that his brother and father's died because of persecuted tory acts so he didn't he can't know what happened to his brothers and his father therefore the i j a was not compelled to conclude that their you themselves were the victim of persecution and even evidence which compels you know other conclusion that you will be persecuted on account of the statutorily protected grounds for you really believe that was what's going on into that at the moment with the genocide where what's going on a eventually lawful permanent residence and permanent residence in the united states but temporary protected status which means things are so bad there that we're going to give you say even here until things clear out and is that something the i j a here could have done no no it's is we should be sending people back to door floors and the other portions of sudan that are now involved in the horrendous activities going on there again  because of ongoing civil strife between muslims and christians and the government's inability to control it i think it was even a little bit more specific that it's a disparate group of chinese ethnic  everyone else it's awful what's going on there but i guess the question for both of you is if if that issue is pending before the court in vain should we vacate submission on this case until the long opinion  christian going back to a country that's in civil war and christians of all sorts are dying more so perhaps in the north and in the south and that's why he has a fear of government is the government that has the burden of a stablish the reasonable safety of the area that he used to relocate the reasons for which an asylum seeker left his country but the proper inquiry is why the asylum seeker is fearful of returning to his country today and that is the situation on which mr daniels claim is based when we had our hearing in front of the immigration court here in los angeles in two thousand and two i believe that was the question was why did mr daniels to returning to just today and as of that time that's what's before this court he fears returning primarily because he's a black christian it doesn't have to be on one of the five protect the great you could see that madness is right on absolutely absent the question becomes how  the wording on pages ninety can of the immigration judges in which which just rinehart was asking is or it's about whether or not the the basis of his subject of fear of persecution is on one of the five recognized grounds and i guess your argument is it has to be on the grounds of religion right not pulled out really show imputed political opinion because of the absence of and we should lose if all that the petitioner fears is is random violence upon return to sudan he is does not fear random violence the evidence in the record does not suggest that christians are the result or are being targeted as a result of random violence the evidence compels the conclusion that black christians are being targeted but the fact that there are massive human rights violations in a country does not that are targeted human rights violations based on race or religion or political opinion does not turn the case into a general conditions case and your iran or one or more of you have raised darfur well let's apply this to a hypothetical hypothetical situation of  someone claiming asylum from darfur the fact that you're a resident of dar forest fleeing massive violations directed at most of the inhabitants of dark or because of their race does not turn that into a general conditions