documentary evidence that the group that had recruited him and thereafter kidnapped him was the militia being alongside side the government but not actually a part of the government in fact the militia group was originally for father was kidnapped by the same militia that kidnapped mistress a partner within six months of miss apart his kidnapping and the fact that it would appear that he was targeted for kidnapping they specifically singled him out in the middle the night they blindfolded  left or didn't help them in some way and therefore stood opposed to him that they would in fact elements from his entire family i would argue that the kidnapping itself was also a form of persecution and they did subject him to harm they know they beat him so severely that his left knee was actually a star his right knee was actually permanently damaged and i think that killing him isn't required for finding a past persecution i think the cumulative evidence the fact that he was persecution i also argue that under control in cases such as not us the events that we saw his father and his brother should have been considered as part of persecution as well so the fact that he wasn't necessarily killed doesn't prevent this court from finding that he was to the next is finding his well his father wasn't just a member of the village she was actually community chairman and you know actually been one of the event people that we originally approach to form the vigilante group application and you know his his father was only kidnapped after he stated opposition to the forming of vigilante groups he spoke out against the government and i think of the evidence of that is that the same militia rest of his father and  so we don't know what happened was that we don't know what happened to his father ok and then the brother went looking for his father and was detained for a period of some months but then returned correct he was released after three do we know who there that this testimony that once in a while has his uncle told him once in a while people come around looking for him yes as well most of the country conditions i would note that the immigration judge twice in his decision when he was wise in these strange country conditions had noted that see that in fact the militia the former combatants were still out there and that they were can still committing human rights abuses he had into the government militia during the now ended civil war in liberia even assuming the part of suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground the board did not err in concluding that there has been a fundamental change of circumstances in liberia such that he no longer has a reasonable fear of future persecution and having failed to prove past persecution on account of a protected ground the agency also correctly determined that mr is the part of is not eligible for humanitarian asylum in the absence of future of fear reasonable fear of future execution how so i can't remember right now did they give him an opportunity to explain why even though the government has changed and there's no longer generally a problem that he might have faced nevertheless he had some individual risk that was greater than the general risk ye country conditions were discussed during the initial hearing and the c h s attorney questioned mistress the partow about how his fear relates to the change in regime regime and the change in country conditions in liberia militia recruited mr supports so imputed any political opinion on to him they never said anything to him they never said anything that would tie just a part toes father's political views on to him and there's also no circumstantial evidence that would compel a finding from this court that the persecutors imputed a political opinion on to him mr supporter never resisted recruitment he never expressed political opinion and his general he never claimed that he supported the opposite cause and mistress apart it was kidnapped with eighteen other individuals and brought to the same military camp and there's no explanation of why he may have been targeted differently than these other eighteen individuals or why these eighteen individuals were chosen and it appears the evidence in this case appears to conclude that this or some part of may have just been chosen as an able bodied person to serve in the militia and without any direct or circumstantial evidence showing that the persecutor or that the militia if you do the political opinion on tim would argue that the that finally should be affirmed by this court regarding the fundamental change in circumstances in liberia the country reports that were submitted by the department of homeland security in this case shows that there has been a fundamental change in the country condition in liberia since mr parcher departed with the end of the civil war two years prior to his hearing  and the evidence shows there's been free and free and fair elections in that country and that the rebels are no longer in control of most of that country that the former combatants have been rolled in rehabilitation programs and have been evidence in this case does not compel it reversed not compose court to reverse the finding of the board of immigration appeals that any presumption of a well founded fear of persecution is rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances in liberia and for the same reason the government urges the court to affirm the denial of the cat claim as well due to the change in country conditions might be area is just a part of his failed to show that he risks more likely than not risks facing torture upon