lankan country condition and whatsoever in fact that really gets i think it's also suffered from the same problem because the court was talking about no you've got a good governance everything's hunky dory that's not the case so my main argument  on the question of political opinion the nexus argument you've been making what about your client's testimony when asked the army or a question about whether you were involved in the movement he says no no no they were just suspecting that they were circles around political opinion you know did the army ever question you got whether you were involved in the movement that sounds to me like did the army to you he says no no no just connection with the people apologize i know a little bit out of the loop on that bet from what i did here i would like to start out saying that you know the court has no warrant to disturb the agency's findings in this case and that has become even more clear since this case was briefed since this court has decided three similar cases in the interval between briefing and argument including the wing us foreign case that i did hear you all talking about then my opponent says that you know each case has to be judged on had persecuted the tamils you know from two thousand to two thousand and fifteen and then wealth power is now back in power and this is a dangerous thing for the tamil know i noticed this same issue and i looked at that pretty closely and st of all what the i g says as he says there was out of date evidence and nothing else was submitted that  changed his opinion about that but if you look at the board's decision the board specifically did look at evidence and cited evidence and i'm looking at page four of the administr that and that's the numbers i was reading yes ma'am so i did like i went through and translated that the numbers that the board cites they just cite exhibit numbers and i went through and yes ma'am i went out west trying to do you i thought you were saying that you didn't know where to find that the board cites to exhibit numbers and where do they do that they do that it's on it's  you look at that page of their decision there at the in the st four paragraph the bottom line they cite a number of exhibits that have more recent minister but not that anything bad had happened just that there was an apprehension that something bad would happen and so that the agency really had no basis to conclude that the the idea that a new prime minister might make something different happen you know there was no evidence to substantiate that there were there was really nothing concrete for them to base that on and now it may i say no to the prime minister who came back into power in twenty eight i mean these articles say his presidency was a reign of terror especially for the minority tamil community it was a guy who's come back to power in twenty eight seen to that will they refer to evidence from two thousand and seventeen is not responsive to my question well i mean i think the answer to that is that there is no evidence that anything had happened yet there was no concrete mean they didn't cite i don't think that you can conclude that they didn't look at it i mean the assumption is is that they've read the record in the board certainly has extensive citations to go etc when i say that there's no there's no evidence in the record  prime minister big but i also think that since the new there was no evidence of any actual change of policy then i think that it explains why they were talking about concrete evidence of things that happened rather than and things that might be suspected to lead to something bad in the future his return to power has worried human rights groups who hold them responsible for alleged crimes committed by the military at the close of the country's twenty six year long civil war against them will separatists and on and on in the end none of that board tends to have string sites with lots of evidence i can certainly take that as homework and go through and check all those out and see if there are references to the twenty eight thousand evidence i thought that the what the court would be more evidence in the record discusses a pattern of human rights violations in general without sufficiently showing respond is in danger of being persecuted on his return and i mean that's exactly what pattern  practice that's evidence is an emphasis on human rights violations against a group in general as opposed to against the individual i think i mean i would have to see the exact place that you're talking about but i think my recollection of that is that he was saying it was generalized evidence that there are human rights issues in the country rather than focusing on tamils in particular because there was evidence for instance that evidence about  has come back into power has mr rimmer as mr morgan provided any evidence that persecution has started back at any of its practices now that's exactly what i was saying in that's i think why i think that the board didn't spend time on that is because there was the only evidence was entirely speculative that something bad might happen now to the extent that mr morgan's attorney today argues that he said that there are some conditions from two thousand and nineteen of course this court can only decide this case based on the administrative record and i think mr merton was arguing today that he would like you to remain to take in for the board to take and check out new evidence but of course there is a procedure for that the procedure is not for you all t exhibits in the record that's what they say kind all right all right so can i ask you a question i know you're out of mind yes i am going to not can you explain to me there is a piece of the agree that that that statement and there is a mistake that that is also not something that they raised they they haven't raised that as an issue to the fore again they didn't it makes me worry about the process perhaps these i j orders are just being copied and pasted from one case to another i mean is that sort of the plausible explanation for what happened here what would you know what happened i don't know how it happened but isn't it it is an error and  where he should have raised that to the board it could have been looked at in the agency that did that make it things that are not raised to the board should not be before the court if there are no further questions i'm seriously out of