states over nine years ago and within seven months he applied for asylum and today this court will hear our appeal  uncontroverted testimony in his case which was found there was no finding of lack of credibility is that mr volcker was a member of the domnann political party and that he was involved in the all india sikh students federation of workers he is a sikh from india from the point job area the record fellow was not very well elaborated he did however submit a four page declaration with his asylum application and he did testify had his court hearing the uncontroverted testimony was  the other rest he was in custody over sixteen and a half months during that period of time there were never any formal charges brought against him he was tortured he was hung upside down he was beaten twice he the reason why he was arrested the reason he was persecuted was on account of his political opinion he was a minister he was politically involved in was involved in political rallies he was engaged in trying to organize  on the evidence of the record and my circuit precedent there really is i don't think any question that he was persecuted and that he was persecuted on account of political opinion given the severity of the treatment he received i would say that the immigration judges decision really gives very cursory consideration to the seriousness of what happened to mr cultura and the judge we guarded persecution is in fact present both the immigration judge and the board determined that a tsunami in the past persecution him there was substantial evidence and or there was evidence of change country conditions through the department of state changed our country condition reports and the immigration judge looked at those reports noted that there was no rebuttal of the evidence submitted in those reports and determined that in fact any any presumption of past persecution had been rebutted based upon that particular finding that very the immigration judge's decision as affirmed by the board in fact supported by evidence substantial evidence in the record with regard to the country conditions report the country individualized and the alice's that was conducted by the immigration judge and heard  decision goes through and indicates that there were the report are indicates the lines in the report which seem to apply to the petitioners case that is that there was the healing of the rift between the seats in the hindus and that  of the state's cause so because his claim relies upon that fact game gratian judges citing to the particular findings or reports statements would make sense as to the particular raised specifically before the immigration judge the board however did consider their claim based upon him and humanitarian factors and determined that that persecution was not to fear and severe to the level that they normally would  china in fact and had had to periods of detention were also suffered quite severe forms of torture and also had had to be hospitalized in intensive care for over a month suffered and his other permanent damage that resulted but it is something that it is a determination that is made in the board's discretion so they've reviewed standard that the court applies for that is an i think the difficulty with one of the difficulties with the with the i j a did was that the french report really presents a mixed picture it's not that it's not as we see in some country ports they say we there are no acts of violence that discussed and the reason i mention that is because obviously the i g is required to do an individualized analysis and absent a an absolutely clear picture that no see because enough suffer he didn't he didn't country therefore which is much more favorable are speaks much more in terms that there is no evidence that sikhs are sikh part particularly face harassment mistreatment or persecution merely on the basis of their religion well with regards to this particular petitioner that did not present any rebuttal evidence really of the fact that said that the free elections had occurred of the fact that the conditions appear to be improving or would say that it was an abuse of discretion for the judge and for the board to deny humanitarian asylum based on the president of matter of chance and furthermore  particular case i would say that there was not any individualized analysis as to how the reports affected his particular case where he was already known and had already been singled out many times for persecution and