you're going to counsel good morning your honour's and i try for your interview saying this case has kind of a lengthy procedural history at the administrative level at this point have to consolidate positions for review one on the underlying merits and the other on the ineffective assistance claim as to the petition on the underlying merits the first issue is whether administrative remedies have been exhausted the the petitioner my client did not address those things did not address the issue of change country conditions explicitly in his notice to appeal and his attorney didn't file a brief form nevertheless the board did address the issue on its own in the course of its decision denying my client uppishness relief so i think that under the court's decision in soccer market the policy aim of allowing the agency to correct its own errors has been fulfilled and for that reason i think it would be appropriate for the court to address the merits of the board's decision regarding change country conditions as to that decision i think the first thing to note is that the board appear to apply an incorrect regulatory standard in think that ultimately the it's hard to get around lopez's interpretation of ensure that if if the board applied incorrect standards and failed to make an individualized inquiry the appropriate remedy would be to allow the board has another opportunity on that issue and i think i think it is clear that the board did apply both the incorrect regulation and apply and fail to apply the proper individualized analysis as to the application of the regulation the board first declined indorse the the credibility determination of the immigration judge and then said nevertheless we agree that that evidence is sufficient to rebu presumption that my client will more likely than not be put will no longer that he would know no more likely than not be persecuted in upon return to india the board then went through a brief and kind of general discussion of country conditions and then said therefore he's an awful person and only after that to the board go to the issue of withholding so i think it's clear that this more likely than not rebuttal standard is what that is what the board applied to not standard that the board applied seems to imply and furthermore i think the individualized inquiry that's necessary was not undertaken here the the board's basically in deciding the issue of change country conditions assume for the purposes of argument that my client was credible is credible testimony included testimony after the date of the end of any of the country conditioning evidence in the elections there was a broad statement about a growing appreciation for human rights and punjab there was also a statement i think an inference from the peaceful elections that that seats were were growing in their willingness to forego violent means to effect a political change but none of that predated country condition information could possibly rebut and he did what individualized level my client's testimony which the board accepted risk or the board accepted for the purpose of assessing country his is credible that the police continued to come to his home and inquire about his whereabouts so i don't i don't think that the individualized inquiry that is required is made here there was and it's also a mixed record nine hundred ninety eight report discussed of the prevalence of custodial torture throughout india the report also discusses amnesty international allegations about  police obstruction in an investigation into the disappearance of human rights was he cumin rights worker just once in cholera and also discusses another sikh leader being held for months without charge and i believe at the time of that report he would stay he was still in custody without charge so i don't think that the proper the proper individualized inquiry was made here to for all these reasons i i would think at least the remit is warranted ok i think we've got your human handlers here from the government standard if the court is the first to have done if you are of the course talking about the burden of rebutting the presumption the actual answer is no the border not apply the incorrect standard is not exactly correct your honor the problem is when the court goes to the boards actual decision the board expressly shows that it's aware of what the immigration judge was discussing and actually cites the immigration judge's decision regarding the rebuttal of the asylum evidence but it doesn't strike the standard are even in the case that the nose of you know it seems to be aware of the immigration judges participation or interpretation but you know we read the what they second a ministry of record it would be about page three thirty two in the first administrative record before the court so with that regard when you read it i can certainly quote hold on india citing the immigration judge's decision ages eleven and twelve there the immigration judge discusses the asylum standard what we have is the board reaching an agreement with the immigration judge conceptually we can understand the board to be applying the correct standard which is why i use the direct adjective in response to the court's question so again it's not the board to apply the correct standard at worst it's not the bourne apply the incorrect standard it's that we don't know what the board's decision would be regarding asylum while if that were the case then that need to be reminded no not necessarily your honor and that's going to be dependent part on the exhaustion  we can we look at this evidence and we can see that as a matter of law that the evidence was insufficient on the petitioner side therefore we don't need to reinvent now in this case it's very similar in that mr s provided no evidence to rebut the evidence provided by the government regarding current country conditions all he wants to rely on is a single statement that the police visited his parents they didn't mistreat the parents they didn't threaten the parents there was there's nothing other than the isolated statement the police visited my parents now the board took this into consideration the board expressly stated based on these past of the exchange country conditions we find that any  person is contacted because of providing assistance to terrorists is going to be only subject to a proper investigation and criminal possible criminal prosecution now the board made the affirmative finding in that direction because the board made the affirmative finding in that direction that really renders any error regarding the standard applied harmless we have the affirmative finding of the board this gentleman under his circumstances will face only a proper investigation no torture and will face and may face criminal prosecution but will not be subject to persecution because of that finding whenever it looks at a record it looks at it for itself the circumstance of this case suggests that the board did look at the record for itself but also looked to see what the immigration judge had held to understand what issues might be before it and a term that it was in agreement with the immigration to conduct further review of the government is pointed out evidence that the board was aware of what the actual standard is was aware of what the immigration judge found and simply provided perhaps a misstatement but certainly applied it one correct standard without discussing the other but the immigration judges referenced should go and be sufficient for the court to not review in that  judge has changed country conditions fining the board did provide an individual individualized assessment of the record and found that it was an agreement with unit with the immigration judge's decision albeit it may have cited the withholding regulation still the decision for the court to conduct it you save some time for a battle your honour's just to clarify what exactly the immigration judge said at pages ten eleven or eleven twelve of the transcript apart that from page one sixty six of the administrative the part that the board my seat maybe starts to incorporate a reference or the i v said on the question of change conditions in just finding it was colored by his credibility view and be talked about a presumption that he will be that he will face persecution upon return and not any presumption that he would have a well founded fear or or the withholding standard but a but some other presumption basically a presumption of certainty that he would be persecuted upon return so that's the first point even if even if the s to the issue of ineffective assistance if the court is interested in hearing our argument on that i don't think you have a very good argument on that well you know i'll tell you that just because it's i'm having mentioning the new app in some country conditions that his decision process did on an adverse credibility determination so that's you know that's what the attorney you know was focusing on and that was clearly stated by the i j a i'd like to add that i agree with judge callahan so you've got a very tough thing to argue that ok and i guess this is apart from the issues of the board had with which i was referred to address of necessary in any event you might get would you need