honor the board of immigration appeals relied mostly on the immigration judge's decision and it's important to note that the board of immigration appeals specifically found that the immigration judge used speculation when she came to her decision thousand both incidences are similar factually of course you're aware of the facts our look at the facts on three different levels but it sure is return to india the militants coming to his home and then after that the police shortly there after arresting him the immigration judge completely ignored the reasons the petitioner gave for his return to india specifically stated that he decided to return to india upon advice from his wife who had told him that conditions were more safe and who had told him the police visits had been less frequent he had out he also testified that the police between ninety seven and two thousand would come to the home take money and leave probably in the form of a bride and he even stated that he was scared to return when you haven't seen your wife and children for a period of ten years and three more that provides a reason or a reasonable reason to go back to india to  of petitioners parents however the gratian judge in her own decision even said that she doesn't know if that causes referring to the petitioner himself or to his parents i can and failed to ask the petitioner specific questions about his return to india such as did he provide for his own protection did he advice his family and his neighbors about his return and that they should keep it secret the in general your honor i have perhaps the government will but i i i mean this that i just speaking from personal opinion i still seen  cases where there are definitely instances of persecution that are happening in small villages there's also within the sikh community there's completely different experiences life experiences and a lot of sikhs in india don't even identify with the current prime minister and his beliefs so it's a there's it's not as as though all sikhs have the same experience in india or that they are all even politically in line with the current prime minister there his demeanor in terms of how he responded to the questions that also is an area which petitioner has not responded to in his brief at all the judge in his decision specifies that no problems with by asking questions that would have established the burden and he failed to do so then the immigration judge can conclude from that that he was not credible is that what you're saying that he was not credible and that he did not satisfy his going  through with credible and he could do that i mean he should have he was given the opportunity and he had firsthand knowledge of it so he could have and the fact that he didn't indicates that he couldn't and that he was not telling the truth is that what you're saying i'm not sure i understand the question clearly but what i'm saying is that it appears that he may have but the immigration judge was trying to assess that the long time first that his wife said that there were many problems so he thought it was safe and then when the immigration judge said but you knew that the police were still working for you then he changed it to say that he wanted to see his family when they pointed out that you had not seen your family in ten years and then he changed it to say that well it's because i am actually and then he says that i don't know why it was i just decided that i should go home the other impossibilities stem from when he said that he was also explained he went home and he decided he would hide well then east states that as soon as he comes home and within a day after he had been missing for ten years and not had been and not been home for ten years all of the sudden the militants and another day after that the police find him well then he changes his story i wasn't really in hiding i couldn't hide when i left home any one of these grounds can be a basis for the court to belief the government pointed out that the immigration judge that dismissed testimony was shifting when a closet villages were pointed out however within the administrative record at ninety six back to see my family and i was scared to see my family i don't think that's shifting testimony that's just different different reasons for a certain action that was taken the only shifting testimony that the immigration judge points out it's administrators record ninety six to ninety seven in reference to whether the petitioner was hiding in his own home and the position is stated that when he came back the second time he was hiding in his own home and when questioned about it he said kind of rhetorically how can one hide in their own home