honour's it is our position that the immigration judge has made unreasonable inferences based on the the evidence presented that the testimony and the evidence presented by mr  was consistent and was not inconsistent as has been argued by the attorney general from the outset of what mr stuckey to laurie described what occurred what happened to him and his family in iran before they went to before you went to sweden the fact that he did receive asylum in tweeting that he returns on the basis of the iran and their reigning government promised him that things would be better for educated individuals that he was then that upon his return his passport was taken he was he was required to spy in sweden in order to be allowed to leave and that his brother was that one brother was arrested and then another brother lost his job and actually the brother that was arrested is still in jail that the brother that was arrested is based upon his participation in a pro addition when he went when he came to the united states mr savage laurie even though it's been argued by both immigration judge and the government i'm sure the attorney general that could stay so he made the mistake of getting into the marriage but quickly in all that he said it was not for the right reason he specifically said that he felt that that she only wanted to  if you want to go forward then he would have stayed in the marriage he would have done whatever he could to stand the marriage he didn't do that and at times second marriage she was already and remove proceedings he could have if you'd wanted brian brought do find that your client is not credible but even if we thought that he was credible your client is going to have a very difficult time making a case as to why it is more likely than not that he's going to be he's going to be persecuted on political grounds  returns to iran he has gone in and out of the country freely the iranian authorities have no trouble issuing a passport letting him back into iran letting him out of iran he's come and gone freely and he has he came to the united states under the received he well first of all he testified that upon returning he is asked what was taken away he was told by the iranian government that he would have to spy on people in sweden at that time he there were two it's unpleasant to be summoned in by one's government and that's not the kind of thing that we would do here but how does that demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he's going to be persecuted upon his return he hasn't been persecuted yet he was called in for questioning out i believe it's confiscated for the reasons it was that that question him about about his previous activities the fact that his brother was a member of a pro shot group that he had participated in  anti islamic government activities both in iran and sweden that his brother was jailed for being a member of a pro shot group and still in jail these are all factors that will affect him if he is returned to iraq it's not again it's not as if the government is going to forget that in addition they requested that he leave or they demanded that he spy for them in sweden he didn't do that instead he went to the united states that is and that is an additional matter since he was required to do that in order to get his passport and leave that that's another thing the iranian government will hold against him will will most likely put him in jail for those  also granted some some deference to the fact that this individual received asylum in sweden didn't prove he didn't provide any documentation as to what he provided to the swedish authorities he had no no grounds for proving i'm on what basis he was granted asylum in sweden documentation as to what he provided to the swedish authorities we have no idea what the basis was that for granting asylum in sweden going on or even he he did have he did testify and he did testify  demonstrates that he he was he did you see past persecution in iran but we don't we don't know that we don't we have no idea what this what the swedish authorities are thinking we haven't provided anything to us well you know that goes against whether  likely than not to be persecuted if his return to iran the record in this case shows that the petitioner really never made out any case of persecution or a legitimate fear of future persecution he makes no claim to ever have been arrested he makes no claim to ever have been detained but for briefly apparently at an airport when he returned from sweden the facts in the record simply don't support a finding that it's more likely than not that he will be persecuted if return to iran the facts in the record  there's mention that while in iran the petitioner served in the military briefly and apparently received something on it on the order of an honorable discharge he lived in sweden for approximately seventy years and there was no testimony to suggest that he was ever changed he was never harassed he claimed that when he moved back to sweden in one nine hundred ninety two after having spent several months back in iran that he received twenty or thirty phone calls which he assumed to be from i think he said personnel of the iranian embassy although he never identified in any greater detail who those people were or what those phone calls were about he made claims that the iranian government was attempting to prevail upon him to spy for the iranian government in sweden but again he as the immigration judge county  offered no detail whatsoever concerning who was attempting to prevail upon him so do the spying or upon whom he was supposed to be spying or for what reason or what sort of information he was supposed to collect really the only record evidence of the petitioners political involvement that might raise any concern at all is he says that he distributed flyers opposing he yes they were at the hearing actually there was a number of continuances that the requests of counsel for both sides and so there was some delay between the time of the initial scheduling and actual hearing but yes he was afforded a full hearing and was represented by counsel and standard is that the agency's findings are conclusive and when asked any reasonable due to cater would be compelled to reach a contrary result and so this court  afraid for his life things they say well that's interesting your honor because he did make that claim although he says that he fled sweden in fear of his wife although the record shows that he actually whether the immigration court should not have given some deference to the fact of the swedish government having given him asylum but again as the court pointed out i think the record reflects that there simply