not specifically address whether he had been persecuted in the past and he jumped straight to whether or not mr of who i should be persecuted in the future if you return however mr bosch contends that he was persecuted in the past therefore that raises a rebuttable presumption that he would have been persecuted in the future had he returned to london on according to the rebuttal presumption it is the government's burden to rebut that presumption with the preponderance of the and he testified that even up to the time of his individual hearing hezbollah was still looking for him they knew he was in the united states but they were still making known that they opposed his past actions and that they had him on not overcome with an individualized showing that hezbollah was no longer interested in him moreover he was very prominent he'd been very clinically active since the age of about thirteen years old he led a students on the the american university has well i knew that he went to israel for some specific training which they specifically objected to and then finally he was leader of his militia and he was very prominent in his role acting on the front  lines i believe in testimony he stated that his his druze militia group approached him and told him that they had very few leaders and they needed leaders therefore that shows that he was one of a few and again the threats to demonstrate that he was under the attention of hezbollah and that he was targeted for future persecution as to whether or not the judge mentioned that he was going to predicate his holding on that we're i would argue he's not required to go back to the immigration judge again the judge didn't specify which evidence it was that he wanted and to tell the truth i know as a fact that that judge was transferred out of los angeles shortly after that decision so there would not have been any today as i stated as well i had been threatening him and his family reported this to him as recently as right before his individualized merits hearing the country reports other background documentation corroborates h did by going down to get military training people who obviously were involved in the militias and who fought against hezbollah but i believe here the overriding factor in this case is that he did have he returned for twenty days roughly and he stated that he never stayed in the same place for more than one night he was constantly afraid while he was there and he moved around and he went to areas where he thought he would escape detection temporarily afraid then he tried to return in eighty nine he generally did want to go back and live there another nine however conditions did not allow him to so he didn't come back to the united states and the only reason that brought him back to london on was because his father died which is or was second he went back for his father and his father did eventually die and i believe that is a compelling reason for him to return despite his fear and like i said his manner of living was so restricted he on page one fourteen of the in the record talks of the people who are at risk from hezbollah and it says they are high ranking party members who were involved in security matters for the organization which presumably refers to hezbollah and later became involved in at activities such individuals could easily provide documents voluntarily with the israelis and talks about members of the s l a would also qualify in that category and then later on it page one sixteen the report says people who collaborate with israel on the basis of security  intelligence in iraq in its occupation of lebanese territory would face serious difficulties with the hezbollah these people are mainly located in the south of lebanon that seems to suggest that this individual having gone to israel and been trained there and coming back would fall within that category but what troubles me is that the idea and the i j seem to think that that might well be the case with seemed to read that statement as if you know had to be he had to be a high ranking official moshe and that doesn't seem to be what the report says and it seems to me that's what it sounded like that's what the idea i was looking for just a little hard to understand but seem to be looking for mr  figure out what was the claim and he repeatedly asked he repeatedly asked in the hearing yes mr please why would they kill you why would has below want to harm you in particular testimony was well i don't know that our case law really permits him to have it both ways he certainly did not make an adverse credibility determination why is that he can disregard testimony that he went to israel for training there was no proof that he did not in i got that hezbollah is going to be all that concerned with exactly how he was trained by the israelis if they're looking for people that are cooperated with israel the fact that event israel for a period of time had received training from the israeli forces suggest that he be tagged with somebody that cooperate with israel so the board's alive to disregard the fact in this very short notice of appeal in very short brief it specifically stated that the i j a didn't find otherwise that he'd been abducted by hasbro law and he'd been beaten and that's something that they can plainly disregard w she will be persecuted in the future is there any doubt but that the argument i mean the the i j a doesn't seem to pay much attention to it but his recitation includes the recitation of the fact of of and it seems to me that the ira i don't think the department of justice can walk away from the fact that we have recited within the decision which the b i has adopted the fact that this individual testified apparently credibly that he'd been abducted and beaten in the them to a presumption we rounded that was not the reason for rejecting the claim what would stop i didn't ask what was the reason for rejecting the claim because that invites the i j a simply to disregard testimony that he can't reconcile so let me ask you again what level of persecution although i don't believe that issue has been raised by the petitioner in the street to this court i believe the testimony was that he was held for an hour a couple of hours government it doesn't say that because of the past persecution that there's a presumption of of well founded fear right but i would also argue that a an applicant should not have to take the judge or the b s a by the hand in th