the police was investigating but it's possible for a person who doesn't agree with the political views of a person who to protest the beating that person is demonstrate this there were thugs who were dressed up as police officers they were in fact police officers and local communities who would be people out there was there's no doubt about that they didn't necessarily keep people off because their political beliefs their religion and they just did a lot of people up what's more many of those cases if not all those cases that i thought this case were strictly to extort money in the end result they beat them up to try to explain to try to get information  the money here with extortion of money the fact that he was released on each occasion by after his family paid money the problem with this record is that there's just really not much evidence of what took place at all that his claim is that he was beaten up but that was somewhere in the course of in one case a five day in one case a forty detention but what we tend to see in these cases and i do this is based on my experience is that the initial interrogation in which they the when they first pick somebody up they run a whole bunch of things faster do you support callous than you support you know there are all sorts of things that happen when they first pick you up and when they don't get anything out of you they hold you until somebody pays your ransom essentially  and that's and that's what we see among these purely local thugs and there's no evidence in a circle that that's not a person no now in this in this is a great case illustrate that in this case a person with no political beliefs whatsoever that they believed that he was one or that he was involved with them during the raid on his house at the point based on the scant description that we have from the testimony when they picked him up he he was involved in a there was a rally that took place or some some sort of speech by a government official and in the speech of that government official that government official complimented the police that he thought the police were a good thing that they were nice they thought they were doing a good job or something like that and mr singh was still mad about being picked up for years earlier and harmed he didn't like that and i don't blame him but in that context he asserts that he believed that this government official was there for a liar and essentially accused the government official in a public setting of being a liar and the  were responsible for bringing this government official to their and responsible for protecting this government official while he was there didn't that i much there was a public disturbance at a public event so they grabbed the guy and took him and in the course of that interrogation they harm him no doubt this question about whether it amounted to torture they did they did what the thugs in india were doing at that time they begin with sticks and they may have spread his legs but in the course of that they said are you work you know are you a militant and he said no me about it but if the end of the id decision he goes into the country he goes into the background information that he has about how this case is like other cases and that the tendencies just what we're looking at here is was were the police the police have a lawful basis for asking him the question are you connected to terrorists and you know you is that a legitimate question for the police to ask him in the course of an interrogation and the answer is absolutely clearly yes if they picked him up for that purpose to me beat him up it would if my clear at what point in giving them up they asked him this question that they're the tendency of these crimes at this time was to was to beat people up and in some point during the beating up whether or not it was just a facade or whether or not the intent and therefore wouldn't be covered as asylum under the asylum grounds or whether it was for a legitimate police investigatory reason as the immigration judge says and therefore wouldn't be covered by the by the asylum grounds he's away is not covered by the asylum grounds you made an interesting argument the point is in this case there just wasn't any evidence of anything there what just wasn't that the fact that the police at some point say something about him doesn't mean that they are imputing somebody else's political grappling political beliefs to him if that had been the case there should have been something different there should have been something more that immigration judge was looking for more than just the one times you know question are you involved with the calloused and you know up to movement are you involved with militancy other than that there's nothing here that would indicate that there imputing t and but when they don't find any evidence to support that they move on to the next objective and that's to extort money by but neither one of those things is covered is a is the grounds first violent and in this case one event was you know it was the single one time event that was