charged for those crimes and therefore he's not subject our the court doesn't like jurisdiction under twelve fifty two eight to see because there was no administrative finding that he was removeable for any of the criminal ground simply as a catholic his life is in danger but it's particularly in danger because he's an apostasy and afghanistan continues to fall shari'a law there are over one hundred surely a courts in existence that are he gave were one that the state department religious freedom report referenced the ongoing catholic in christian congregation is that in afghanistan and the other reason w neither of those conclusions are really relevant they don't contradict anything the mr smith instead and in fact the first reason that he relied on the reading of the state department report is actually incorrect the state department report it's an existence of an extremely low profile christian community and the report further knows that it had no it didn't have any record of the treatment of converts during the period of time that the report covered and so it's not in any way inconsistent and as far as the amount of money or the troops that we have in afghanistan that's really not even in the record and a the board specifically declined to reach the question of whether mr hire we committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside of the united states the immigration judge found correctly in our view that he had not but the board decided not to reach it is not persuaded that the evidence reflects that simply as a christian i mean as a catholic who's converted he's met his birth and the court would have to re man because the board did not addressed all of the evidence in the record he didn't address all of the factors that he presented that places like in danger and under the regulations implementing the torture convention it's incumbent upon the poor at the agency to discuss our evidence and it clearly fails to do that the other factors and in fact the i g himself really didn't make much he really didn't discuss those factors either and still even assuming that they affirmed his finding on from the government this time is either in the conclusions of whole petitioners remain claims he also claimed that he would suffer persecution because he had a cousin who was a member of the time is government way back in the eighties communist government that may have been repressing afghanis at the time there was no evidence that he was involved in the repressive government and he was not he was currently not even granted asylum in another country at the time of the hearing so it's not persuasive tha contradicts that and you know just in terms of those additional factors even though they're not before the court i mean the record does support the conclusion that as a family member of somebody who was a high ranking individual in the communist government which he was he testified that he was in the department of ministry the record reflects that family members are routinely extorted and persecuted and that happens today and so it wasn't and it really just to go through each of those factors on their own really isn't the encouraging because we argued that it was all of those factors that place like endanger not not not individual even though there's certainly an argument that each factor on its own would subject him to persecution but again the question is really does the record compel the conclusion that as a contradict what he said to the judge his reasons for discounting his testimony are not substantial and are and so the court is left with the testimony of that expert and it's consistent with the record it would have to find