and also he failed to provide corroborating evidence i'm going to start with the evidence because in reality he did provide corroborating evidence specifically a letter from a doctor listing all his injuries a letter from his mother  information that politician was very powerful in israel so even though i don't know exactly why it was a made it also if you look at the affidavit of it it itself is about six or seven pages the part that was litigated is about look at the court's case law and just pulling it up as as we speak treads credible threats of persecution in itself were found many many times to be persecution especially if it jointly with the confrontation and this specific instance petitioner was kidnapped kept for two days was severely beaten and then he was promised that he and his family would be killed specifically we're going to for two days so again this court numerous times held that confrontational trusts in person are enough here he was confronted he was threatened he was kidnapped and he was promised the entire family will be eliminated also one of the key issues are whether the people who are trying to make a person whether they're able to carry out that threat that would be the main inquiry well in this specific instances we have a involvement of the businessman michael turner who by israeli police by their own statement was engaged in the kidnapping killing assassinating people and ordering murder for hire so clearly we have lawyers that it was considering stripping him of his citizenship which had been obtained by fraud and then a quotation mark the police have information to the effect that you are responsible for act murder attempted murder violence and traits which were committed at your orders or were contracted by you that's the newspaper article from from israel in page four thirteen in the middle of  so the group that kidnapped my client the group who tretton my client clearly had ability to carry out the trek combined with the backing of a most powerful politician easier perhaps he was a minister of series harm particularly when combined with confrontation or other mistreatment may constitute persecution and also another case law that says what matters is whether the group making the tread has the will or the ability to carry it out that would be cries of the ashcroft so that's the case law in the circuit this court ruled on that and in this case we have treads confrontation and other mist would be severe beatings and also the kidnapping now as to the buildings i would like to concentrate a little bit on the they injure his doctor specifically said that their blood sheds over bruises and other years mother said he couldn't mother said he had swollen face while a nice wife testified that the husband couldn't move he was beaten so severely the doctor said he needed medical attention even though there  i think i think good detention was more of a in passing detention our police picks him up takes him he some couple of times releases him did did not beat him to the point that his entire body was swollen and hurt also the treads were more over based on the political opinion here it was more of by the people who engaged in the killings the court just like a dog or for the attorney general this court to deny the position petition for review because petitioner has not shown both the record compels or verse all of the independent merits finding as well as the adverse credibility determination it's a high bar for both and neither were met in this case first with regard to the merits determination and the court's conversation this morning has focused on past persecution not only has the harm in this case not risen to the level of past persecution but there's well as the respondents testimony the individual's testimony as to what may happen to that person and in israel should he return when they did the correct because that's the finding in the prior two paragraphs or one for a long paragraph so that they didn't make a finding of what would happen if you applied the correct because there is no past persecution in the state in this you and in the individual was detained and being once just as in this case individuals detained and beaten and there is a short interrogation and this case there is no testimony as to any length of interrogation but  medical treatment and although it's true in this case he didn't take medical treatment there was significant testimony that he was really injured isn't that right i disagree partially there first it's not clear exactly how long he was detained it could be three days at most at one point he said one day it is longer than a couple of hours and go but it is not clear that it was a full three days the second part as to what exactly happened to him if you look at record on page eight hundred that's the doctor's letter and that discusses that the extent of the injuries and it discussed bruises and and some  but the treatment that was prescribed was essentially ice and rest and i'm not trying to minimize an injury that requires ice but in the context of the severity of something that contact constitutes persecution of a threat to kill him  the killing of the person or the person and the family would be sufficient when combined the problem of i think he may find the whole story not ok i think there may well be a reason to question the story but we are limited to the reason to pay and i must say that it's discrepancy in that in that time that he said this occurred it occurred over a three day period and there said three and then each immediately changed to hard to see that as an arc of credibility the second reason is the absence of the name of the israeli official but as you know we've got a number of cases th expect the full details in the initial one and in the interview he says that he gave them specifically and there's no refutation of that and you can say well how long he was detained i i acknowledge that yes he changed his testimony immediately and he said and it's on page one fifty six of the record at the bottom and he said and the first question was how long were you kept there and he responded almost two days almost three days and the immigration judge tried to clarify whether it's two or three and he said almost three and then his attorney tried to clarify again and and he then said well it was the thirteenth and then iraq was back on the fifteenth so it sounds like it was just two days and maybe one night and so i understand that that could be him trying to explain but under the real idea act an inconsistency is an inconsistency and not on the face of it is an inconsistency and there's no record evidence that compels a contrary that i only have two minutes left i would like to quickly address the omission in the affidavit because it's not simply that he left out the name of the individual on page eight nineteen of the record which is the page where he the paragraph where he talks about what happened in his a davit it talks about the during the incident i heard names of people who i believe we're all behind all of this i realized that those people were dangerous and serious because they kept my original complaint and now he's talking about the individuals who were holding him hostage not about high powered business people he was afraid of the people that were holding him hostage because they had his police complaint which is a legitimate fear but it doesn't connect those individuals to these high powered pull of political figures that he's claiming to fear and so the emission is that is a different fear his fear is is is in this affidavit is from the people who are holding him hostage not the high powered political individuals and so that's the omission that's not just leaving out a simple name it's a lot more distinct than that it is clear for the yeah there's no evidence in the record as to what happened during this that before this current correct and so either the ultimate problem in this case is  he has has suffered past persecution and and it's the record just does not compel that conclusion   the country condition reports do not show that there is reason to fear so i would argue that he did face past her situation and once we have a past persecution the presumption arises that there is a future which was not to be borrowed by the country condition reports also if you notice that the department office of integration litigation is brief they argued negative credibility at the end as a backup it looks like