client it fair hearing he was overly hostile impatient he had a demeaning tone and negative predisposition towards my client he used the wrong law he used and twisted her word and on top of that he misquoted what the state department of the united states had alleged in its country conditions reports for india all these factors make it impossible for my client to have concerns me the most on the prejudice inquiry here is that the point during the immigration hearing where your client was being cross examined regarding the inconsistency between her statements in the asylum application which she had i guess made about ten corrections to before the hearing and her response to her and her actual testimony at the hearing which appeared to me to be completely the opposite  what are we to do with what appears to be an inconsistency that goes to the heart of her claim for asylum where she was given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency and long as she's given an opportunity to respond that basically by marrying an african american man it should be in the country conditions stating that that is why she's going to be persecuted he wanted the exact words and exact allegations she was making exactly in the country conditions  apparently at one point she took the position that her family was upset with her because she very black man out of caste but then at the hearing both you and she insisted at several points that there was not a basis for her claim for asylum why is that not another inconsistency that the i j a could properly consider in finding her not credible thanks very much and she never interjected race she and she said an african american man she married which she was trying to emphasize was she has no choice under the caste system to marry the marriage has to be arranged the judge interjected race he used the word black man forty two times he interjected judge that she had an independent choice which was not accepted by her family and her family was going to penalize her and take action that would be her brother against i'd like to keep the remainder of my time  me for a bottle ok thank you very much insufficient to show the objective basis and in order to reach the objective basis they must show them that their fear is based on credible direct and specific evidence of future harm in this particular case the foreground mind on the country condition reports which although indicate that there are problems faced by christians in india it indicates that the constitution provides for freedom of religion in fa faiths enjoy freedom of religion in that country in addition it acknowledged that there are problems between hindus christians and sometimes the government is not effectively counter societal attacks but it i this court can rely on country condition reports in finding that there is no pattern and practice and here the board a proper any immigration judge appropriately relied on that the country conditional and appropriately rejected that letter because it was an improper translation it wasn't certified and there were other problems with the translation so there was allegedly some evidence that she didn't submit it properly and so we don't really know for because there was no arranged marriage that did not take place she married an african american outside of the cast and she converted to christianity and he did not like that so he doesn't you so when she's asked to describe what exactly w answer would be no in this particular talking about that in this case and the reason is because well there are there are a couple of reasons number one as the court has mentioned it came from her brother and there's no evidence that the as far as i know now she does say there's no evidence but what she's done well there's no written evidence that says that you know that the government won't protect her what she says is that  government won't protect her because it's a strong hindu faith and that the hindus so we glean from that that the hindus who have had problems with with christians wouldn't protect her i think that's what she was trying to say but as your honor has indicated it's a threat from her brother it's not a threat by the government it's not a threat by someone that the government is unwilling or unable to control and so therefore it wouldn't necessarily rise to the level of persecution but what the what the board's found really is that the threat was speculative because it doesn't really she doesn't sort of her own general view of what would happen when she says that her brother didn't like the fact that she did all of these things she married outside of she didn't marry according to arranged marriage she married outside of her castes and then she converted to christianity and she just says oh  he's going to kill me and the board says well that's speculative what you know there's no additional evidence that she submitted and indeed there was this letter that she never even bothered to have properly translated was the only of atoms that she had available presumably that or that her brother is a member of the hindu fundamentalist organization which runs the government which is connected to the leading government of the federal government of india as well as the government of my russia where she comes from he's a member of the contention my clients contention is that her brother is a fundamentalist and a member of the indian government and he will seek her out and kill her if you say that the government she never said that the indian government would protect