warren versus the attorney general the government to respond but well the judge took the fact about that salem secret argument because they mean getting laid on a one page document by the prime minister and said everything is fine now you don't have to worry about the there's been a civil war and the war's over and the government feels that people might belong to a terrorist group or group that want to overthrow the government and this i forget your acronym are called the tiger  tiger group are terrorists our government recognizes them as terrorists and this if this person if their question or interrogated be based on the fact of concern that their member of this terrorist group that something that's thinking your client's thinking in practical terms about what's going to happen when he goes back yes you know what's going to happen and a couple of things about this same to me to go against you in terms of that being a real fear  thing is that his mother and brother are back there and apparently doing fine and the nd thing and this is this is a concern of mine and maybe doesn't fit into a pigeonhole very well but if your client went to france parents happy in france and france for five years they're even giving him a check every month could have stayed in france as far as we know he didn't show up for his amnesty hearing he decides to pick up and go to the bahamas and illegally enter the united states he's even offered the chance maybe to go to canada and forego this where he's got family he says no to that the fact that he would leave france where he was safe once all indications are would have been allowed to stay to come to the united states where it would be very if he for him here illegally to get amnesty suggest to me he's not real worried about when he goes back to syria longer but he's going to be persecuted he would have stayed in f camp how do you react to the fact that the i j a who did a pretty went through the different treatises and things and and the conclusion was that while things have have been rough right after the war that things are you said that he's being persecuted for his government's perceived sense that he's affiliated with the if he's actually with the l t t which has been designated as a terrorist good morning alison i go office of immigration litigation representing the respondent i'd like to just pull in an era lee correct correct the record i'm not sure if it indicates that the petition in this case is detained that into account mind you telling us this because usually we need to tell the court because they put it on a special truck when somebody is detained that's all i just wanted because it doesn't appear on the briefs we normally stated up front that the fifty treatment that he received was not serious enough to rise to the level of persecution and so therefore it wasn't torture even though he claims his brother was tortured but and there was not a nexus agency in the address that you know the agency did and so if the received and a ground protected by the statute and i'd like to return out of a thing of it was they were saying whatever happened to it haven't you want to characterize it it happened because of the suspicion that he was member of a terrorist group not because he was a tunnel because there are lots of tunnels that aren't being tortured well it is because they believe he was a terrorist that's what he argues now but that's not what he testified to what he testified to was that he was pulled out of this camp but i thought that was the basis of the that's arguing that's what your agency believes is not because he's a top top mill tama but because they thought he was a terrorist they thought he was attached to a terrorist family and he testified that he was that that is not a nexus to it a ground protected under the statute he claims he doesn't pay were if they were prosecute if they were going after him persecuting him for being a tamil they went into a camp that as you said is filled with tamils and they pulled him they pulled him and he alleges that they pulled five thousand and fifty other people that were suspected and interestingly enough he testifies that there was a line of fifty people who were suspected of being l t t e members he was not on that line he says that he was pulled out they were angry at him and they beat him because his aunt who was an l t e team member had escaped and they thought that he helped her and they were angry at him for lying so it's not even clear from this that the motivation was that they suspected him of being an l t e member which he has always denied but rather that they were investigating the escape of his aunt from the camp and they thought that he had a hand in it and that's what he testified to so there really isn't any evidence and as you pointed out  investigating so he did not have a presumption of a well founded fear so he had to prove that and you know the i j a found in the book and the board agreed that his family and his brother who a very similar situation to him and his mother had been living there since he left in two thousand and ten now his brother was originally arrested and questioned about this affiliation with an l t e family member but his brother has since lived there and he has to report but he has not been arrested he has not been bothered he hasn't been harassed and so this record does not compel a conclusion that he is at risk personally of being persecuted so then raises the issue of a pattern or practice and the court found there was no pattern or practice because the pattern of practice that while there is evidence that there was torture and there's mistreatment of people that it more goes to a prosecutorial type of treatment where it's not it's not focused necessarily on tamils but people who are arrested for various crimes particularly security crimes but various crimes are subjected to mistreatment in in the prisons there and that and the immigration judge acknowledged all of that evidence although the petitioner said that that she did not take into account or he did not take into account all of the evidence definitely acknowledged all of that mistreatment acknowledge that there are some problems and also acknowledge the tamils are discriminated against they are harassed but found that there was not a pattern a practice specifically against the you will prevail only if it is that that mistreatment is so extreme that it shows a systematic previous of what organized effort to kill in prison or severely injure members of a protected group that evidence is not here yes there is discrimination there is harassment and there are instances where suspected members of of the l t e group are arrested and there is mistreatment in the they had him in a camp they they pulled him out of the line they questioned him and they released him and he proceeded to live in sri lanka for at least five months after that they could have found him  and his brother was in it was in a very similar situation likely went to the same school though it's not in the record they lived in this area he was a year behind him and yet if they suspected the petition of being l t c they haven't gone after his brother they did on one occasion right after the war in two because they tortured is rather in two thousand and ten that's what that's what he that's what he claims however there is a finding in this record that the mistreatment that he sustained what didn't rise to the level of persecution or torture there is no finding on whether he testified to that there is no finding that his brother was tortured there was testimony to that but there is no finding that his brother was that i don't think the i j a ignored at the i j a doesn't have to and doesn't in often in very many cases specifically state each and every piece of evidence that they  it credibility finding per se but did say that he was concerned about certain aspects but i would say that it is not necessarily relevant because the brother now the i j a it did find that the family is living there the brother has not been bothered he has been he has been reporting regularly in fact there is a there is a an exhibit showing the reporting dates he has never claimed that his brother was mistreated on any occasion after that this was nine years ago that it happened and it's a question of showing that you have a well founded fear of future persecution in a case here where there is no where there is you know no past persecution and i would just like to address one issue judgment you asked whether he would be entitle to asylum if he were found to be an l t c member and that the answer to that is no because there is a prosecutor bar two people who are found either to have been a member or who provided material assistance i'm in this case there was no finding or there wasn't a charge that he provided material assistance but that is a possibility of the case will remanded that it would be found because there have been many cases where people who have done the types of things that he did in school as a youth were found to have provided material assistance to a terrorist organization so although that was not at issue below if this case or remanded he could   withholding a removal under the statute and withholding of removal under the convention against torture it does in those situations allow the person to apply for what's called deferral of removal under the convention against torture because if the person proves torture not persecution but if the person proves torture they do have the option of applying for deferral of removal under the convention and they would be granted that if they show that there was past torture and there that they have a likelihood of