and they took a look at this and they said well here's a gentleman who was only one day or something like that involved as a political activist and so we conclude from the kind who report given this person's situation  country report and then getting over to page three the first full paragraph they talk about given the past persecution suffered by the response her given the past persecution of the one heard over a decade ago now they're giving reasons in addition to the court and that the political party that he feared may no longer exists we agree that the service met the burden demonstrating on individualized basis i think what you're saying is it's the ins burden to dispel the presumption that countries you can't rely on one hundred ninety seven countries report by itself the only additional thing shown are that the event occurred over a decade ago and you say the speculation that the party may no longer exist circumstance i think that's probably workable and here they did like the individual i circumstance i think you would have argue were not sufficient circumstances even if your contention with the country report to dispel existence of evidence well this is their reference to the country report of the fact the been many elections during the peaceful times in the parties and our history and transition without any trouble after each of these asked where you've been yes my sister already months ago was eight months ago that they asked her what did your sister tell you she heard so already you're dealing in multiple levels of hearsay here she heard that since the town is small right used to live that the are rumors that they're always asking about me so you're talking about multiple levels of hearsay with respect to rumors that's not very that doesn't really compelling anything does it in terms of concluding that your client faces a threat of  leaders or high profile activists would be possibly subject to harassment or any other type of not really even persecution just harassment or some type of violent activity i submit that the petition he was not even a party leader he was involved in the for three months and he held a poll watcher position for one day in the party so he never said he was a leader he specifically testified he held no other leadership position in the party  hardly be subject to persecution well the country report clearly rebuts that information so i would say that is enough of an individualized determination however the ins went farther in this case and said not only has the country that only party leaders or high profile activists would be subject to persecution or harassment or violence and that's part of our the further part of that statement is only in our home communities therefore the ins went so far as to say this now also said that there were some reports from his sister that people were still looking for him but she never said if you want to rely on that information that there were threats that anyone threatened his life if you said that people were maybe rumors that people were say well we can say because eight months before his hearing someone maybe was looking for him and there were rumors that people were looking for him is is a need to say people are threatening him and still looking for him and hopefully you know they looking for him on the head i don't want to speculate why they might have the if they were looking for him why they might have been looking for him but just the fact that maybe someone was looking for him is not enough your honor i mean nobody was threatening him and i mean i would i would argue that threat there at least needs to be some sort of threats even get past the somebody to smack you on the head with a gun because you were perceived as a political activist and you found out and a number of years later they were looking for you how might you interpret them well i don't want to speculate on that either but i would just go back to my original statement that i mean there's no foundation that anyone was even looking for him but i would say that the everything else i don't particularly important in light of the fact that an individual who can relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum here so why doesn't that we view from that we're going to get in trouble again with the supreme court but i'll also again here the report is general on its size in local communities not just a single community but you know and you don't dispute the evidence that when he relocated to the capital city for eight months there were no further are and no i don't think he was that he was not his whereabouts were not known at that time and over a period of time more increase were made where they asked for his address that could occur if he does go back