decision of n z m r the board failed to properly apply that two prong test regarding whether mr singh can relocate and most importantly whether it would be reasonable now the board ideology that the police believe he had it is not reasonable nor feasible for him to be located outside of the peninsula but traces back over it i actually wrote this thing opinion so i'm very familiar with it and there's certain things that the i j i j or the b i has to do well before we get to that i want you to know in terms of background this is at least in my experience at least the th case that i've had where somebody named singh has virtually identical claims virtually identical and i think the i g has those same kinds of issues so the credibility if they will put to a side for a moment but let's talk about relocation in this case for example mr saying you didn't testify that is that is persecution of all the congress party so is there any need to given consider what role the congress party my pal in terms of any relocation  i think because his claim focused on harm and minister by the police no i don't think that we are looking for workers on the police or and and who else conceivably p party which is the ruling national party could be a factor that would inform his persecution because if he continued with separatists  but in terms of what he said so i understand it correct me if i'm wrong your client is a very low ranking man party person hold no big cheese guy that's nobody knows him he just a regular guy  and he claims the police beat him up and he came to these people came by and beat him up on the way back massager game or whatever but the reality is in terms of relocation you get outside the punjab the question is is it a reasonable determination by the i d b i am that he could be safely relocated i'm struggling with what he said that makes their determination administrative notice of by the judge the fact that the mon party principally operates in the punjab so he had to relocate outside the point of view wouldn't he be deprived of the opportunity to have a political voice and to participate in secondly and he did testify to this he believes he is on a list of chronic offenders this was discussed and you have any evidence that he used to back that up well they did take his name and fingerprints so he did just that when the police picked them up right i mean your honor you've seen so many cases in my twenty years i have as well it's not always the case that the applicant claims that their fingerprints were taken but in this case they were and therefore he has perhaps a stronger claim in someone else by stating them or by alleging that should he try to run to lodgings or get a job according to tenet landlord registration schemes throughout india that that information could be relayed back to the local authorities and then some sort of process would start to locate him if i just  continued interest in him by the more recent beating and death of his mother in may two thousand and thirteen in which she claimed that the police harassed her in an effort to locate him since there was no adverse credibility finding we've got to take that testimony and give it full weight again that's similar allegations made in a whole bunch of these mothers almost always killed almost always beaten up but in terms of credibility let's assume for a moment that's correct how long how long ago did he leave india i mean it's been about six years or if it's yours ok and his mother was killed about that time  so in this case is there anything that happened in the six years and she was right even if something happened he did claim that he feared that his wife who remains there would also face similar harm with he's not been contacted all right well we don't have a mission should be open based on such evidence but that's not to say it did not happen the court can only look at the facts as they were presented before the court but they have to be facts that are  my what i'm getting from the claim here is there's a lot of supposition this could happen that could happen this could happen but there's i'm not seeing solid evidence that there are other people similarly situated who have had problems in his type situation if he has relocated elsewhere in india but your honor is this isn't the case law doesn't require the that in this case the board fail to consider whether his active membership in the party would expose him to harm and if he returned to india he's claiming he would try to actively participate and that's the basis  future interest in the police to stymie those are for i might save my remaining can you can do that so with that in mind returning to judge smith's questions about supposition and where is this evidence and what is the evidence here he's a low level person he's agreed with that slow person is not  great national interest the immigration judge said identify the immigration judge identify the issues that on a are seventy one immigration judge said look i find that he can avoid punjabi police and other police and also the national because he's of course of the permanent actors in the situation he was being five times in the job the police and the u k country note the law library of congress report the state department port all the reports indicate that the petitioner can internally relocate and be safe and practices religion as long as he just sort of continues his life as normal he reports reflect maltol see communities within india and part of we need to keep in mind too is india is a country of one billion two hundred million people and the country ports clearly state that twenty eight states seven territories with a high degree of autonomy from the national government let me ask you this council your opposing counsel makes the argument that the petitioner here would be deprived of the ability to continue to separatist yeah the support of the man party but when the immigration judge looked at the evidence the evidence showed that low level man party officials were members because he's not even official low level man party people can avoid harm  continuing long life in any of the twenty eight states seven territories with a high degree of autonomy but we don't really need to even consider from your perspective the argument about future political activity in terms of separatism because words in judge miss miles my understanding is that it requires that the immigration judge consider harm by other potential actors outside of just the punjab the police and so on a are seventy one dollars immigration judge and identifies that you can avoid harm by the police and the national government so the the immigration judge identifies the issue accurately and so that's one thing and then when we look at the actual evidence this substantial evidence to support it in the sense of all these country reports saying have multiple communities within these this large country it's federal democracy and can we locate the immigration judge identify the issue accurately and you're in there saying is claiming the police have imputed a political opinion on to him of being a sikh separatist and for that reason it isn't safe for him to relocate within india would you if i understand your and decided to continue with his pro mind support but but again your opposing counsel suggest that he didn't didn't really claim he was much of an advocate even before so or we do he's going to do that in the future i would refute that your honor the record was pretty clear the five times he was arrested it was always after participating in pro mon activities some were to protest police  st that man party member not of interest to the central authorities is not targeted outside of the punjab so it doesn't matter  that seeks tone have to register with the police and when they were relocated to another area he made a number of specific findings unlike the situation in the prior sin misconstrue the background documents for example i think we argued this in the brief the canadian refugee board conflicting comments from various experts regarding the feasibility of relocation some said that those priests he would seek separatists would be on the list of likely people that would be targeted a different expert said something else so i think that th court has to view that record with an open mind and find that the i j may have viewed those reports in the most negative light and it's improperly because there was plenty of conflicting information in there about what is the standard of review that we're supposed to consider we have a story on so so if it one side has substantial evidence and the other side also has that and the l j ways that don't we have to defer to well i think that since the topic is a cylon and the risk of harm to the aliens so great the court doesn't want to make a mistake to send someone back to risk their life and so therefore the evidence should be construed in the light most favorable those authorities are saying is that the evidence to the standard is not substantial evidence but whether we're personally concerned about your client's welfare if you were sent back i way to the respondents credible testimony ok thank you thank you both for your argument we appreciated the case just argued is