track the credibility finding that first credit quality finding and you find that there was past persecution what is there in the record that we have before us about future person persecution and why shouldn't even if we get to that point why shouldn't that go back for a determination that well your honor there is the documents that were submitted by respondent at the hearing which were given very little weight one chilling that he had to go back papers so the evidence is in the record there was no evidence to contradict that or to impeach that but what about the fact that this is such a different price now and that's why i'm here that the last judge died th and the proper weight of that evidence can be given there was in the record multiple relevant questions so much time in its path asked that i mean future persecution is different now than it was in iran because the behind believe in god and because they believe muhammad was not the last source and so just because and you you it's not as big a high sensually speaking the beliefs are relatively the same so if there's documented evidence that it's being persecuted killed tortured and imprisoned then that same theory goes over to the and then you just because the smaller amounts of numbers the beliefs are relatively tame and that  from the international freedom report and other reports from department of state it is the police that caused the religious persecution not just the name of that is how they got staff all out there somewhere but about this record we're stuck with this record i understand your honor and so you're confusing me i think you're talking about well you're not confusing me you're talking about a lot of things that are in the record i'm talking you're questions for me previously on it was wasn't there a lot of changes between now and back when persecution there was testimony from response from appellant that if he goes back to iran he will be tortured and killed there was testimony to that there was nothing to impeach that the only thing that occurred is the immigration judge and the a for the various reasons that are in the record did not believe him but there was no testimony put on the other side there was no just seems to me that part of the record was really very about the power some of the records your honor actually some of the transcript has not understood not understood in multiple places in the transcript so that might have led to some confusion as to what might have been stutter not said but it was clear that he did say that if he goes back to iran he will be tortured and killed and there was that mean the case that that would be correct but the basis upon which they didn't believe that's why we're here today cracked ok and that the record shows that there was a persecution and that there would be future persecution in your honor now because he was in proceedings when it was made part of our laws he had until i believe it was april first one nine hundred ninety seven to move to reopen to apply for have protections he did not therefore it is waived cash is not an issue his military duty and he was released and went into the military and i guess the question that i have in terms of suppose for some of the process of why the sound adverse credibility correct i mean there were a few things in terms of  he had engaged in was he didn't know there were a lot of i don't knows the indiscernible do not affect the outcome and if you believe they did that was a matter to raise up on appeal to the board that's what the point is there are gaps in the evidence and he and you and you was being investigated and he was released he served in the military without any limitation for two years and then he lived there for almost another year well if i were to conclude that  evidence doesn't support so  i'd like to just respond to a few points here on several occasions counsel has said that speculating it wasn't speculation it was testimony there's never going to be a general in the courtroom saying if he goes back to iran i'm going to shoot him dead i mean everything is what you would refer to as speculation its testimony as to what happened the question is was it credible was that believable and was there anything to impeach it and we are claiming that there was make that such finding they ruled on why they believed that there was no political asylum why the burden had not been met and each of those burdens was based upon the speculation now it is not the part of the they mean there was multiple incidences in country reports and country conditions that showed the persecution yet they decided to just speculate with no evidence no testimony nothing in front of them as to why they believed what his testimony meant whatever when response when appellant in the underlying hearing says that that letter which was translated says that he is going to be persecuted and killed because of his affiliation with and you that was the testimony is not speculation testimony there was nothing to rebut it the military the reason he was in the military was because his uncle had pulled some strings so that he wouldn't be killed or tortured so he gave the illusion that he was part of islam again and of course he didn't go in the military and say i'm and you you member i believe in god i mean everybody wants to lessen my that it's not call came and got him out of jail in tech and to the military right the testimony was his uncle pulled some strings and got him into the military basically to save him but directly to the military or basically yes yes and then once he left the military again he didn't go parading about the streets that he's and then you remember he went into hiding for about a year before his immediately upon his release from the military is ok you served your time now you did your service now you're going to go to the prosecutor ok now this now that's the document that he translated hands that's correct that's correct and and never done ok so in closing we have an appellant here who if he is returned to iran he will be tortured and killed and at the minimum put in prison and we are asking that this court grant the asylum when you don't have to for we don't hear from you well no nothing's happening thank you