improperly dismisses the significance of his first arrest he was clearly arrested on the first occasion along with his father on account of his father's political activities during that time his father was threatened by the police threaten to  didn't know that well how do we know they did well because based on the fact that casey was on a scooter driving at night the police take him to the police station days to apprehend him on the spot detector that before you go to the police taking him to the police station he was driving on a scooter at night and and by own testimony nobody else is out there because they're hard because they know that the police are out there and they are afraid and scurries have some reason to think well you know this kid's out here on  motive and that's why i keep asking i will ask you again in any event are you trying to persuade us that there are only motive was political or are you trying to rely on are mixed motives cases well i was initially going to say that i would i would argue for a mixed mode of analysis but i do also challenge the board's finding that there was a reasonable suspicion as to the second arrest some but that's then i don't understand that we can look to their verbal commentary when they are beating him and spreading his legs and doing all that and you know it's true i would never we made from that but when you have someone who has admitted that the act in which he was engaged when picked up was aiding motive in the actions of the police why i understand right your honor but if we're still looking at what the police knew and what their motive was just for the second arrest i don't think it's there i don't think they have reasonable suspicion well that's what i was saying the police are here and we get all those kinds of cases domestically and you know the defendant is always saying there's no reasonable suspicion and we're always having to do the further the police are going into account in any event what they say their perspective is we don't have that here but we have the i think from the government side just is obviously an inescapable political but the government assume from apparatuses is investigating what is criminal activity under the laws of india immigration judge made a ruling on future persecution by the border not addressed it but then means that every revolutionary violating the laws of his or her own country in the conduct of the revolution is automatically eligible for asylum in this country persecution well we don't really but that's sort of begging the question with that's the point he's saying there were three arrests within the space of two years by the same police group in the first one because they don't abuse the mr show all they did it on the ground that there was no persecution so how can we now say well they did it because they based it on the fact that there was no evidence of the father well the board did affirm the immigration  criminal investigation it just turned out that they were wrong here the police all hypothesize or engaged in a legitimate criminal investigation it turns out that the right what's the difference i mean there's a there's a matter of that but one case the right one case they're wrong because they're doing the same thing for the same purpose i agree with your reading your honor and the board's as a pretty what i think is a good analysis of the case in terms of the fact that i don't think it matters whether or not the police t and while he was being beaten in whatever manner the police were are accusing him of belonging to a certain group that there's no evidence that that took place here it's very clear and mr karr testified that during the the police specifically were questioning him about any information he had about the bomb blast that killed the police inspector it's clearly he had information about that and he lied to the police about the information that he had and that's th information they were trying to get from him there's no evidence that police were accusing him of belonging to any guerrilla group or a terrorist group by him i think there's ample evidence the entire premise of the investigation is that he's an activist and for the rest of the s cause i mean that's the crime they're charging him with or the charge later they are that's the car and they are suspecting him no i disagree or i don't think the record shows that they were charging him with being involved what they thought he was doing was scouting for an escape route for someone who had been a sick gauged in what they view as legitimate illegal activity but in furtherance of the sea cause well i think you have to separate the two your honor there's no evidence that the police were accusing him of being involved with the stick cos the evidence is they were accusing him of being falsely accused him of being involved and a certain group so that we are still under this arrest while they were beating them and torturing them they said you're not going to get countless stand we even beat you like this in thing you can go up there in make but i think it's clear from the arrest and from mr cho karr's own testimony that the police were questioning him during the may twenty one three arrests based on his involvement in helping this other party escape  arrest basically that he was out on a deserted street in the middle of the night scouting police checkpoint locations clearly that's suspicious activity they arrested him they took him in they question he lied about the let's suppose that the investigation was directed at finding the terrorist bomber but it was also he was being beaten stretched out the way he was in part because of his presumed association with the sikh revolutionaries now what's the situ it was the government's position there where there's a mixed mixed motive on the part is the position of the tester seems to be concerned that if we were to conclude there were mixed motives here that somehow the release below with the difference of what's the government's position on that well i'm not sure that i agree with the time i want to just address the convention against torture issue does the government take the position that the hundred eighty degree spreading of the legs that was engaged here is or is not torture there was some question about whether that aspect was faulty that is the changed country conditions that the spreading of the legs one hundred eighty degree spreading the legs is those qualify as torture well i guess that means that by saying if that were if that were the case that's not necessarily determine if the torture claim is just because he might go that on that one instance that constituted torture which we would argue that it does not even in india since one thousand nine hundred sixty but he can't show it's more likely than not that anyone would be interested in torturing him and number two in our line of the state department report to show that country conditions have changed to such an extent that there's no evidence of a likelihood of  evidence of the father's membership is not an issue in this case because credibility is not an issue therefore when missionary testified as father was a member of the collie dog that that should be the end of the story furthermore his father soon after david express mixed motives concern here my mixed mode of concern i think that in this case to be completely honest with the court that the case was the night on the wrong issue i don't think this case can be denied on the issue that there was no nex had been preacher made on that ground it wasn't it also was a case could have been denied on discretionary for just question reasons that wasn't the case either here or the board clearly denied this case on the wrong grounds and that's that's pretty much what remedy are