on page seventy five of the administrative records and this is that lines fifteen through eighteen the immigration judge asks are there any issues stipulations of fact or law that i need to be aware of  start the government attorney says your honor we would stipulate that he is statutorily eligible we well the judge cuts her off or what to apply for asylum and then she goes on to explain at that point you know the only issue that the asylum officer had relates to questions eighteen a b and c on the asylum application and those relate to the mr singh's data entry conversation carries over into the next page of the record  where the judge says you'll be able to question the applicant this is that begins on page seventy six line fifteen going to be able to question him he's talking about the you know with regard to the data ventry and then below that the trial attorney says lines twenty one twenty three quote and that's the only question that we have otherwise we feel that he's entitled to asylum if he can just prove that just so i mean it's as clear as it can be in my opinion that the government stipulated right at the outset of the hearing that as long as he could demonstrate just to the one year issue and it's on page seventy seven and the judge refusing to accept this stipulation from the government says well sir you're all present your case of whole and during the presentation of your case you're going to have to present you're going to have to i guess meet all the  rejection of the stipulation is inconsistent with this course decision in iraq all and that once the government stipulated that this individual to reviewing the notes of the asylum officer the assessment of the asylum officer the reasons for the referral  those documents giving the government attorney had indicated that we thought that she thought this individual qualified for asylum and at that point that issue should have been taken off the table and under all that should have been left for the immigration judge to decide was whether mr singh was deserving the exercise of discretion now the immigration judge ultimately concluded that mr singh had failed to establish that he had suffered persecution that was on account of protected ground  except that the government stipulation you know we never would have gotten there but on that point the immigration judge was absolutely incorrect and this is set forth on page eighty three of the administrative record this is the first arrest these facts are just simply ignored filing a complaint against police for violating human rights and particular of his nephew he says i was i was just in the process of thinking about it carrying on to the next page and they say this is that page eighty four line fifteen he asked well what happened at the police station at the police station they asked about darshan singh but that's this and they said you are the only person and you're going to make a complaint against the police this for half an hour and then he asked as they did they say anything to you while they were beating you he says they said this will be a good way to teach you a lesson because you're going to make a complaint against the police  they're torturing and they're telling him this is to teach you a lesson for thinking about filing a complaint against the police that's direct evidence they were motivated at that point by his political opinion or his perceived opposition to the police and their conduct in committing human rights abuses and the immigration judge mentioned none of that i mean obviously the trial attorney at this case recognized that the persecution it was on account of political and if the judge dismissed it and for those reasons it's our view that the best way to at this point mr gelb if we agree with you and back to the board of immigration appeals based on the stipulation that he meets the basic eligibility requirements for asylum but that leaves open still the ultimate exercise of discretion in the case we go have to go back to an immigration judge for the ultimate exercise of discretion it won't go back to this judge because this judge was a visitor i don't even think he's from the circuit that's part of the problem i think with the handling of this case  but ultimately is going to have to go back to another immigration judge so that he can actually size discretion on the application for asylum i reserve the balance thank you azarov i'm from the us department of justice and i represented her in general mr soong has not done the only thing he must do to prevail point to one piece of evidence that compels reversal one piece of evidence what w out in our brief  on the issues that he raised on page seventy five about the time we appeal well we would we would stimulate that he is statutorily eligible for asylum you're on that means that you've filed within one year he also there can be more than one motive for an arrest and the fact that there is more than one motive does not mean that the political motive is just cancel that as well that's true but that's not the case in this in this case your honor because  mr stern helped his cousin di shon who was a criminal sought by the indian government three times before he was even arrested three times and that over a period of four years in ninety four ninety five in ninety seven there were never any problems he indicated that when the police came to arrest him they did it because they were looking for his cousin who was wanted in connection with the bombing and weapons charge that their leader mr meehan is able to travel freely speak freely that he's able to even introduce legislation we have indicated that in our brief that this is not this is not a political case r a criminal investigation and why mr singh was arrested was also not on account of his separatist movement the rest is because of criminal involvement in blowing up buildings council and i'd actually like to return to the question of of what government seventeen the i g turns to government council after hearing a closing statement from from mr singh's counsel so the counsel for the government do you have a closing statement answer no your honor question what is your position investigation into the shire who are blowing up buildings and running guns and i don't think i've ever seen a lawyer who came down to the end of this case and said i don't have a position on what the evidence shows well your honor maybe this case could have been litigat your honor i see my time is up again that does not find him credible with respect to that medical because he submitted a medical now that i get the medical the medical form is all troubling it is troubling on the government says that the issue of whether mr singh's first arrest was least in part on account of his trying to file a complaint against the police wasn't raised at the border that's just simply not true if you look at page twenty one this is the brief to the board of immigration appeals it says quite clearly the motivation of the police was testified to by the respondent was to prevent him from filing a case against the police to compel them to stop harassing his cousin sister and her husband when the police came to know that the respond was contemplating filing a complaint they illegally detained him for two days without any arrest of a i mean it's clearly raised that the board of immigration appeals on page twenty one this stuff but you know the indian police don't target on movement and that carries over into the next page that says that the people who have profiles on opinions are particularly at risk the government also says that mr there was no stipulation as to that mr that mr singh filed within one year of his last said quote i do your honor he submitted an affidavit he said the government's not contesting that down below and just and it appears that it was just simply uncontested and the judge ultimately found in his decision that he found the application within one