it's really really love you know like the enemy as compared with his father for example i think his brother his father was the village leader for many years and is now alec ation that his father was being harassed because of that your honor so just political i can mean he's nobody can say what the police were thinking about i understand that it seems to me a pretty low level the inference when i was wobbling activity was nonexistent for the first arrest them and minor and asked for the second well your honor how do you account for the fact that the police  that not only he was arrested by but other young men were arrested so here the grounds of persecution are religious affiliation and of course at that time  grounds of persecution and you focus on the third arrest and i different facets of it because it included some of the most unusual testimony i confess i have encountered having to do with what he said happened to him actually his counsel had to lead him to the answer he was supposed to give and he would have anything else no you sure nothing else no and finally he was asked in so many words because you talked before about being suspended from the ceiling after the second arrest do you remember now whether you were suspended from the ceiling answered i think they did and then why did you miss that before i did not remember it so that my mind being suspended from the ceiling was a den of fight isn't actually most horrific part of the treatment and i find it difficult to understand how somebody would respond i think they did if that's was to be the hallmark of his case frankly it suggests i think they did suggest that i'm not sure if that was part of the script for that be that arrest or not i mean that by particular facet of his persecution or how about the fact that he didn't mention it for his second arrest and it might have melded into one in his mind but really the point here is that he wa the early mistreated and the events that had occurred i think that even eight years prior to the hearing is it not reasonable for him to have possibly forgotten that momentarily i don't think that well but the credibility terminations sort of the problem because in all of these cases there's one story being told and the government doesn't have any independent evidence so the exercise becomes one of listening to the story and trying to figure out of it hangs together frankly if the i j a had had made an adverse credibility determination in the way that properly could have been made i think you have a hard time here trying to sustain this testimony based on this and other things said by the individual he didn't make that determination which is really why we're here but i have to say i've got real doubts about the answer i think they did it seems to me not the answer somebody would actually suffer that treatment would have given suspended upside down from the ceiling that's the hallmark your case you probably are going to remember and if you're not sure suggest to me that maybe you're not sure because you're not sure who's part of the script or not well your honor on the other hand he did not exaggerate the events that he stated occurred to him which is what i don't know whether exaggerated or not that's your problem we don't know really what happened we're taking his word for it and if you're stuck in the position of having to decide whether he's telling the truth based on what he's saying  the record does not support the contention that the fathers and uncle shootout with the police and one thousand nine hundred eighty eight or eighty nine has anything at all to do with the  ninety three arrest it was proffered but there was no connection made and it was discounted as a connection now with that said we the case  and we argue the case and unfortunately it has not it has not been clearer to the court that the first incident was found  to be not persuasive because it was not on account of a cognizable reason the judge said for example i cannot connect this incident to any political activity now and i can see that his most especially in regard to the second and third incident most recently can be read in that matter and  that's that's the best up what in a bogart movie would be called the usual suspects the people that they think are involved i think people that they know are sympathetic to or assist in any matter the insurrectionist we have to but you get the usual suspects because they're on the hit list so this guy somehow is on the hit list to be picked up and there's an episode whether they know that he's guilty or not and isn't being on the hit list being one of the identified as one of the usual suspects itself reflective of being persecuted or single that level of persecution i'm speaking of that really being that being singled out for a reason that qualifies as a religious or political reason i think the thing that can distinguish what happened here and what often happens in some other cases is that it was for a police purpose we know without doubt that a very serious violen level of society in india throughout india including  the insurrection involved in terrorist activities bombings assassinations not only police and army personnel but civilians in the very early ninety's india got serious about doing something about it and they stopped in the course of doing that the police acted very roughly and brutally  in this case there was never an allegation that any policeman made any type of out of a slur or a comment against them anything like we're doing there's just and we know for a fact that he and his family with these prominent father not only sympathized but supported the faction within the sikh political community began his testimony with the words quote we demand probably start on a separate country for six so he's never had and his family's never hidden their sympathy so it should come as no surprise that when the police seek information that he or other members of his family are rounded up and that seems to confirm the allegation though that he's being rounded up because he has that political opinion now you may say it's because they're investigating a crime related to that but it still focuses on political opinion if he goes back and maintains the same political opinion he'll still be subject to being rounded up and beaten unless you can say that you have any they're going it with a criminal is involved in the criminal acts the fact that they justify thought pissing on people with that political belief because somebody with applicable leave conducts terrorist acts is small satisfaction to him it suggests to him he goes back he's got that political belief he's going to get picked up and beaten again it's this type of case is very troublesome i suspect to everyone because if you're talking about strictly a criminal context the police obviously don't whether they do sweeps or whether they focus on individuals wherever it is in the world when you're looking for for example a swindler you don't go out and investigate your list of trial molesters et you focus on the person or persons that might have with you one when we get into this instruction context and political beliefs i would i would contend that it would require something to show that they're going beyond the inquiry of course they're going to to well remember like i said they they like to around all these people up and they're going to round up far and encourage them to talk and they're going to look at people that might have the information they're not going to go over to the u p the hindu house across the street who supports the congress party and beat him up and get information out of him they're going to go to whoever has the information and the fact that  encounters persecution then  the next case you're all three seven one eight six one going one versus consolidate the submitted on the br