improperly shifted the burden of proof on the issue a well founded fear and the thirty issue is whether petitioners case warrants the chen finding of humanitarian asylum based on the severity of the past abuse really it was raised before this court your honor as far as i can recall i believe it was also raised before the court i don't remember offhand whether the board had s we agree with you that he had risk credibility determination of the i j a n b a should be overturned assuming i continue to have a problem that according to his own testimony after he gets out of the military he lives outside the punjab for seven years apparently without great difficulty and that sounds as though he's able to avoid persecution by simply by moving elsewhere in the country that's what the i g found how do you deal with that argument when i believe in reviewing fisher's testimony he did state that he was on the move pretty costly and yet fragile to different parts of india taking fourteen hours by train from his home your honor however he i believe he did testify before the i j a that he was afraid that given the fact that his history with the police was discovered by the military when he enlisted the many military and we believe that the i g improperly shifted the burden he basically put the burden on petitioner to show that or the idea that belief stated that the fact that he lived in the ballpark region for a certain period of time individualized determination on country conditions that we need to show that there was a significant change or country conditions that would allow it to her to return to india or whether he could recently relocate to another part of government proof was not used was not presented superbike that well founded fear to go to sounds as though he presented himself i'm sorry this is it sounds like your client presented himself in his testimony why i believe he also testified your honor that during the time that he was living in that area he left he always lived with a fear that he was somehow he found out he was found out in this home town thought i mean if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board determination that you know in fact he past persecution the presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by the fact that for the seven years prior to his leaving india he lived in harms and without incident in india i'd like to just adverse credibility discussion that if the court overturns the adverse credibility determination it has to remain to the agency under aventura i don't know why we said that it's not correct  second basis is that the applicant could avoid future persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's country of nationality the finding in this case was based on the second reason and so evidence about change country conditions goes to only did he live on a harmed but he received a special passport from the indian government he initiated numerous contacts with the government mean the most official was receiving the passport he was also married  was some testimony i believe about how you know that involved getting a marriage license he also ran this national trucking business and had to obtain a commercial driver's license for that legally i think i think he said he wasn't sure  seen the commercial driver's license but so he lived for seven years in another region of india initiated these contacts with the government and nothing happened to him and under those circumstances the agency again if you question story it happened once so it's unusual in that regard i mean he has a story in which in fact he was shipped back to the point job from elsewhere in the country at an earlier point that's right and then after that i mean after that second arrest the uncontroverted facts are that he left in this bhopal region for another seven years nothing happened not only that but when he was asked why he left in one thousand nine hundred seven he said it was because the opportunity arose it wasn't because something happened or he suddenly became more fright he just had an opportunity to leave and so he did what we know about his family members who are here with granted asylum how many of his family members years i mean presumably if he went back now we can assume that he would again live in the bhopal region of india right his trucking business being married and based on the evidence in the record nothing what happens when there's no evidence in the record at all to support any sort of argument that the indian government was aware of his pressure or had any interest in him while he was living in bhopal you know talking about this humanitarian idea is he he didn't exhaust his remedies he didn't raise that argument to the board even if he did that the facts of his case don't come anywhere close to the facts and it's a matter of chance where there was eight years of imprisonment there are very few cases where for six months right for about six months and then the second one was for a couple of months but i mean so assuming all of that is true yes he might have established position is that we should not interpret humanitarian exception to have it simply irrelevant that virtually all of his family is in this country based on the what he claims the basi found that he when he left the united states he left because the opportunity was right in terms of being able to safely leave the country without being found out and seek asylum in the us which he immediately get thank you thank you thank you very much