with that in mind i'll turn if i may to several of the adverse credibility funnies that you actually cited in her decision in the first adverse credibility finding concerned the i js stated inconsistency regarding petitioners identification of a suspected militant to the p testimony is on direct and on trost is in fact consistent with his i five eighty nine compelled to identify those words a reasonable presumption or inference could be that the authorities attempted to extract information from the petitioner but were unsuccessful describing the motivation of the police officers in having them and look at the photo array as opposed to conceding the fact that he did in fact give the person who was at the playground supposedly recruiting yes your honor that is petitioners position in fact that they are one in seeing on directorate i believe or either on director cro petitioner conceded that he did tell the asylum officer at the time as the interview that he recognized this particular person but did not say anything the inference being from his testimony on direct and cross that yes he was shown several photograph he identified any of these people he states that he did recognize personally recognized what at least one of the photographs one of the people in the photographs but did not say anything out of fear for safety and with that in mind petitioner but i believe it's still consistent with the evidence in the record that he did not specifically verbal ear in any other way identify that person to the authorities or provide information to the authorities about these suspected mili with respect to petitioners father and his arrest and and concur if i mean we just justice layton that that describes the motivation of the authorities to bring him into question him his testimony in court he stood on his testimony in court essentially that's yes they try to extract that information from me because i was so scared for my life i didn't say anything i didn't proffer anything i did not identify anybody and compelled to id  the i v s concern was whether their sort of in his affidavit had referenced that he was able to secure the release the petition his father on both occasions of his address i believe are one forty eight quote i helped his family for the release of late jar mail saying on both occasions he died on twenty two ten one thousand nine hundred six close the father died subsequent to his release by the authorities on his second arrest titian or was not at home at the time his father was arrested on both occasions at that time i believe he was in hiding and didn't have personal knowledge of what was occurring he had second hand knowledge so to speak from a maternal uncle i believe who conveyed information to him yes the essential point that just her wishes to bring to the attention the court this morning is that a reading of that hundred six and petitioners testimony is consistent with that in the sense that he says that he's learned that his father was abducted by authorities in a white van and taken from the family farm fields where he was irrigating the fields apparently seeing the authorities take his father away the day before you know white van should be resolved in favor of petitioner there are just a couple of other inconsistency is that the i g alluded to if i just me briefly highlight them one of them has to do with the number of photographs the petitioner was shown will should be resolved in favor of petitioner the number of times that he was beaten or supposedly beaten when he was arrested by the police four to five or four to six we believe is a minor consistency there's precedent this court that the number of units is not the account of the legion and imputed political opinion specifically association or suspected association with militants and that his father was subsequently arrested and beaten and apparently murder he was unsuccessful before the administrative officer and then also in front of the immigration judge now i must disagree with the characterization that was made here about the question of past persecution  even assuming are you and on the respondent was credible the fact remains that the police legitimate tactics and we certainly think they're totally reprehensible however the statute does require a nexus to one of the enumerated grounds are our position is that i is something that's taking place no matter how brutal but it's not tied to an enumerated ground it is not persecution and it is not covered by the act one of  claim the first one is our guest ninety four under arrest and interrogation about his strands relative whether he was a militant or not the second being september ninety four he claims that say that his his evidence does not compel belief looking at that first incident the arrest in august of ninety ninety four ok you have you have the question of whether or not he identified a suspect and in that sense cooperated with the police we've already discussed that pretty fully there's also the question about how he claims he was abused by the one would assume if you were maltreated in this way that you would remember pretty well what was done to you is also a question of the nature of the injuries sustained supposedly in this incident  eighty seven there's also a letter from a clinic at a r one fifty and interesting only in that letter the most serious injury appears to be an infected wound on his arm so that impression that his father was beaten to death by the police and then they threw his body in the field but then later our money's being cross examined this is a r one twenty eight he says something i'm not sure i have this quite forbade him but i  t know he was arrested and the family didn't see him from the time he was arrested to when the body was found so he doesn't seem to be really too sure about exactly what happened what the sequence of  certificate in the record that's an a r one fifty three and the death certificate contains no cause of death so again it's really unclear exactly what happened here now question there's also the question of his failure to establish his identity and you've heard a number of other cases touching on that subject this morning identity is is a vital issue passport that's who they are seventy six seventy seven and again he is the one who carry the burden of proof we would submit that he has not carried carry that burden in connection with  petitioner when he was in a number of different locations in india he was a chill and our briefly was it utter pradesh for about a year and a half and at delhi for a year this is what they are ninety seven to ninety nine apparently had no problems with the his consistency in terms of a doctor's affidavit as to the injury sustained i would like to point out to the court that in that particular affidavit or letter the dr does reference multiple lacerations or wounds on the body and that is was standing his testimony that he had to destroy his passport with respect to kids places of hiding in india i believe reference is made that he was not bothered in india during that time by the authorities however petitioners te