opinion being a member of jamaican labor party and three where the board and immigration judge err in determining that my client was ineligible for withholding relief based on his two thousand and one domestic battery conviction based upon a review of the total administrative record you will see that there is a contribution to what the board in the american immigration judge determined the two part hearing that my client had stories immigration proceedings he testified to to growing up in jamaica and hearing the drug trade slurs being told time and time again towards members of the community as well as her popular culture is advocating the killing of ga really act and injury and among that mob with his own family relatives advocating the chilling of these two gay men because of the fact that they were gay men acting many homosexual acts the long ago was that national pro this was back and when he was growing up which was twenty years ago your honor however to me during the course of his immigration proceedings he did have five witnesses including his father who the human rights watch which program which provided completed report in two thousand and fourteen stated several incidents at least over one hundred incidents of physical assault as well as verbal threats against members of the and the fact that the police rarely ever refused to actually take these reports or exacerbate the situation by telling these individuals to to not make this reporter into anything that to make in this report you have a little bit about what the evidence of that is but the evidence of the police turning a blind eye or tacitly supporting a course or so the human rights report to human rights watch completed a report from between two thousand and twelve to two thousand and fourteen and which they spoke with members of the community who had been physically client resides that she would still be feeding this particular council so under kat you do have to show torture and so part of what happened in the decision is the conclusion that some of the evidence didn't show torture but rather verbal harassment are complicit to the actual actions by others and in this instance is the government officials themselves up the police themselves were not formally taking any of these reports run investigating these these concerns of harassment and physical salt and there hav officials who stated in jamaica that this is not an issue of concern for jamaican people and they continue to to allow for this continue to allow for this anti gay homophobic attitude to persist in in jamaica stated he had stated that his recent deaths of his uncle would work to work with actively as part of the making labor party and had recently been killed because of his active role as a leader in his community for this party as well as two of his cousins that had died because of instead that he challenge the totality of the circumstances or the totality of conditions in jamaica and ultimately that the record does not support that what is present in the record is substantial there evidence that an individual is going to face harm that rises that level because this court has consistently said that torture is an extreme concept that goes beyond mere harassment and while small salt circle aspen are of course unfortunate and should be prosecuted investigated what have you they don't rise to the level of torture we have evidence in the record of hearsay speculation from his own family about conditions in jamaica statements about uncle that was killed but again they  can see it in their own testimony that's based entirely on hearsay i heard from other family members or heard from other people it's there is no evidence as to exactly what happened here it's all speculation and what isn't evidence don't apply i we assume he's credible i mean on the last requires both persuasive and credible testimony credible testimony enough is it is not enough yes jamaica still has an anti buggery law but it hasn't been used to prosecute anyone since two things are changing in jamaica and again the whole point of the relocation finding is that while perhaps fischer's own hometown where he knows people people know him maybe in as much as he's been gone for two decades even if they know him in his hometown he can live elsewhere in jamaica and that's the entire point of the relocation thing turning to the particularly serious crime money against issues trying to relate really to get his conviction and he claims he acted in self defense and then claims that they deceit and consider this evidence that's simply  just not the case both immigration judge and the board cited this off the fence claim and found that it lacked merit and this court has stated that there is no rule of law that prevents the agency from designating any crimes figure a serious one now the facts of this case absolutely support that finding out with respect to his political base claim again pressure has said nothing regarding the fact that his party which he claims to be members of fact in power in jamaica how that affects his claim ultimately what we have here is a question of weighing evidence fisher is calling on this court to decide the case differently simply because he disagrees with the result and that is not allowed in substantial evidence standard or is it for the questions th immigrants to my client's domestic battery conviction back in two thousand and one the immigration judge the pion contradicted yourself several times in her actual britain decision police in terms of reporting what happened to her and even the judge that in her own opinion that this was a mid range offense in terms of the sentencing itself working only got twenty which hold months a conditional discharge so in that sense it would not be considered se is not a literal center it must show that the sequential risk of that is based on obtainable information by the appellate and here my client has submitted these documents since the very beginning of his immigration proceedings he has shown and probably did from his family is said when he was with his family his father himself pacifically heard from a cousin telling him you should have beat the gay out of him and he better not come around the scene cousin who had remembered advocating the lynching of two gay still persistent throughout treme so regardless of whether she is in spanish town jamaica or another part he would still be targeted of that it would not be an exception to any type of harassment you have to ask the government's waiver argument on that point i believe that my clients address this in the immigration proceedings as well and they could rip trip substantiate this also again looking at the total administrative record it shows clearly that there is a contrary conclusion to what the board immigration judge had