as recruiting new members collecting funds pasting posters and campaigning during elections whereas mr singh testified that he quote made people acquainted with the federation put up posters distributed flyers and collected funds but didn't actively participate in any elections i just found this to be a significant inconsistency but the conclusion is without support if we agree with you on on that issue how do you respond to the whole thing that even assuming pas founded fear of persecution through individualized analysis on their site state department reports long passage of time the nature of the incidents that had been involved and significant changes dramatically since one thousand nine hundred five but this is actually a general finding of improved conditions and it does nothing to address the petitioner specific situation but he's a registered member of the a i asked our staff who had been arrested and interrogated in the past and for whom the police were still looking as recently as six or seven months before the hearing so clearly conditions for this position are have not changed nothing submitted by the government or cited by the board is evidence that on an individual lies basis robots mr singh specific grounds for a w d take that out of the general country conditions finding and two that you think that then the country reports that there's evidence and they're asked if this particular segment that would still support  substantial evidence to support those findings given that those findings are largely based on intangibles that we don't have before us the demeanor of the of the of your client of how he came across to the court those entirely based on factors concerning the nature of the testimony which are ascertainable from the record and supported by it and that's that's not entirely correct if i recall i mean there was particular findings with respect to his response to particular that finding should find the position petitioner not credible simply not reasonable the other demeanor finding that she found was much more generalized and had to do with him not making eye contact but it didn't specify what part of the questioning that was related to and i would on that point i would direct your attention to the fact that the petitioners demeanor or lack of eye contact during cross examination which is what the saying as in this case the applicant was there's no evidence that the applicant was placed under oath at the interview no evidence that an interpreter was used at the interview no evidence that the applicant counsel was provided an opportunity to ask questions at the end nor w evaluation of an asserted inconsistency and i would argue about the demeanor finding regarding cross examination that is directly related to the i just reliance on this unreliable assessment sorry for and without your honor i'm going to reserve the rest of my time  evidence that the country conditions have changed let's take that last one person you don't mind the view i didn't address they use the language saying this is sufficiently individualised didn't  show that the country conditions have changed as to the petitioner or those similarly situated now they in this case did use the phrase individual or sufficiently individual eyes but didn't one hand the petitioner has not shown that he has an individual experience of persecution that is different the state reports have shown and i think that's a factor secondly i think the state department reports are quite specific they talk about not only about the conditions in india not only about conditions in the prisons you have not only about conditions with seek politically active groups but talks about  for the moment that the petitioner had been found credible as to his testimony do you believe that testimony that the police were continuing to look for the petitioner would overcome the generalized reports of those find him credible on that point and that there was a threat what particular rise to evidence exists now that would suggest that that particular threat no longer exists if you're honorable what i'm suggesting petition or statements even if found credible he does not say that the that the police came and asked for him by name all he has the statements various reports that police went by his farm  what what do we have now that suggests that that threat has passed so the police are not going to come to him again when he goes back to india  evidence in the record of some individual targeting yes your honor i don't have i can't call to mind the data that letter right but i mean how do you deal with the letter  i would say that i think the state department for its part are quite strong in this case and the district had the opportunity any point to reopen the records and to show contrary evidence whether it is news reports or evidence of police looking for him that we usually see usually it's it's a hearsay from a relative he calls back and they say we were still you know people were at the place for still coming by looking for you  as you well know that the standard is quite high and in this case there are multiple grounds that he i j cited with regard to his testimony before the one petitioner says that he was treated and went home every day for six days in a row the eyes are found him not sleeping at the hospital was a major inconsistency and then other inconsistency that was cited by the i j a was