incredible and also found that he had no well founded fear of future persecution now in terms of the adverse credibility finding the petitioner of course carries the burden of proof and the court reviews under the substantial evidence standard in making the adverse credibility finding in this case the immigration judge said that she reached her conclusion on consideration of all the evidence of record one thirty three to one fifty and with the court's indulgence i would like to read just several sentences from  as well but as i'm suggesting the immigration judge did look at this background material the state department report also specifically said that she was considering that and making her finding and i think the review abuse him after midnight he ninety three or would do so if he were to return to india would have to provide concrete corroborating evidence that the organization had and or now ha ability and the intent to carry out such action this would be extremely difficult for most africans to do since the future was incidents which have occurred after midnight nine hundred ninety three have been targeted primarily against prominent political leaders which this person was not ok and also if i understand correctly that speaks of terrorist attacks but the problem we have here is an allegation he suspected of being involved in terrorist activity which granted may seem implausible on its face but that if he's harassed as a result of somebody else's mistaken understanding and so he doesn't as i understand it claim to be harassed because you remember  volunteers were bringing cases against policeman and the courts were processing that so i think my point is just that you know things there's been a lot of improvement some of th this new crime that they were able to cut down on terrorism and also cut down on police brutality that was a result of the questioning of people since they were trying to stop the terrorist however i do want to  evidence which prevented it from compelling belief which is what it would need to do since the substantial evidence standard governs our adverse credibility issues there were a lot of different things but i  think there were four main threads here one was that the immigration judge doubted the petitioner was politically active she she pointed out that he didn't really know the goals of the beach eighty and while there is a letter in the because he switched the story around he said one thing in the declaration and he said one thing during the reactions to money and something else again during cross examination also the immigration judge found three of the four two allegedly by sikh militants coming home from a rally and her point was there were a thousand people at the rally he wasn't a local leader he wasn't a speaker at the rally why would he be singled out terrorist for turning some of them into the police again that's all seemed impossible because he said that he had learned of this activity it was happening there were they incident november of ninety six that he a change his passport but in fact it came out in the testimony that he had obtained it several months before that so he was getting it a year after incidents three but before incident four so if he felt terror he certainly wasn't reacting in any quick way to that fear as i said there are the immigration judge also found and also the fact he got these letters from this father who apparently is still living in punjab and his father didn't report that he was having any problems even though he is hindu and a strong supporter of the vicente i conclude all right offered something that i'm not going to believe and the immigration judge shouldn't believe but there is no expense or governance to disprove that nobody can really prove the person didn't invent an anti gravity machine is the immigration judge required to leave common sense at the door if there's not election and all he can say about the party's range that it wanted to keep the party together on its face that says to me this isn't a person who is a political activist and knows what's going on because he would have voted me would have known something more about the party than he did isn't that an appropriate thing for