fact that he was persecuted because of his imputed political and or religious opinion and that he did testify in a forthright credible manner with respect to the adverse credibility that he was quite exist in his testimony and in establishing persecution as a result of his involvement in an intelligent or intelligence organization that was reportable to the prime minister of india  just wasn't that credible when he testified at the regular hearing with respect to the organization itself i believe the i j a or the court concluded that's because there was no corroborating evidence of the existence of this agency or organization that it was very difficult to corroborate fisher's credibility so minute that his credibility established and that there is no need for property in evidence in that regard especially given the fact that this is in the nature of a secret organization similar to the cia and this country and that it would minutely your honor we don't know of any frankly but we would submit that it would be speculation to conclude why organizations such as human rights watch or embassy international or state department reports do not mention the existence of this organization it's not to say that it doesn't exist but it would be speculation or conjecture as to why it doesn't show up and documents such as those provided by human rights watch or mc international even departments department of state rather if you made any effort ok that through the internet or your honor believe attempts were made i don't have any information about it through the internet well one way or it wasn't it wasn't didn't take very long provided information about road blocks to two people who advocated violence his whole point in testifying in that regard was that he was trying to save lives and  his his testimony establishes that he did not agree with the government that these people were in fact terrorists that could be every small interpretation he came to he came to find out toward the end of his caree again the record did not go into further details as to whether or not he believed that he was advocating people or organizations who engaged in terrorist activities or who were labeled terrorists he believes that the government problem i have with that you know are you at least you're the your clients know whether this is true or not and we're looked really pretty silly if we issue an opinion this isn't all this this this agency doesn't exist when in fact it may well evidence he didn't provide evidence that the that brought exists nor did he provide any evidence that even if it did exist that he was a member that he worked for ron the evidence right i mean we're just on the first point i mean if i think it would be unusual for in these kind of cases for someone to approach in the immigration hearing without sufficient documentation on certain things so i'm asking you as a representative train general does this organization just understand your general position which is nice and neat and technical on the burden of proof but in the real world if if this if in fact in this organization i think don't think perhaps he would have thought he'd have to prove that it necessarily existed well the the immigration judge was not aware that rugs listed in the burden is not on the government to prove that so the immigration judge was looking to petition or show him some evidence because his testimony was so sketchy as to whether he even worked for an organization and just your testimony was was that he worked for this organization for thirteen years investigating seek terrorists and that he didn't realize that's what he was doing although he was recruited because pacifically because he himself was a seeking could get access to the people he testified that he worked for thirteen years investigated at least thirty to forty people and often times his investigations of those people ran for months at a time he lived with some of them and he could only name one other person other than the one involved the studies involved in the actual allegation of persecution only one other individual in thirteen years that he actually spied on so the problem with this case counsel if you look at the transcripts of questioning doesn't quite go that way he didn't apply some specific names he only supplied one your honor the other names were names that the i petitioner only recognized one and he said he just happened to meet him at the golden temple on a random encounter but didn't the and the other one he testified he didn't believe he was a high level terrorist and had never heard of him because he would have and these were names that were included in the documentation presented to the immigration judge so all of these things go to the immigration judge and the board's decision that petitioner just didn't present enough evidence to support his claim that rah existed and that he worked for it he's even  got a secret mailing address that he mails things to with the prime minister's office although he addresses them directly to the director of ra and then he says well that's you know if you called the prime minister you couldn't get that information in his claim is just very unbelievable and the board just simply did not believe that the tale and what we're saying is we don't want to sound applications to applicants to be able to come and claim that they work for secret organisation and present no documentation present no evidence that they actually work for and along with that he didn't know the true nature of raw until the very end of his career he didn't know that they were seeking out seek terrorists i mean the board just thought it was unbelievable his claim in itself was unbelievable well  this wasn't something he said he discovered at the end what he discovered at the end was that sikhs were being targeted i mean his testimony is pretty contradictory in that aspect that yes he did know he's very invasive and yes he did know what what his bosses were doing information and he said that he was not responsible for setting up these encounters he just took the person to the location of police with the ones who enacted the encounter so this was something that happened repeatedly that he was aware of the evidence here just does not does not show that petitioner met his burden and his burden was to show the existence of wrong which if it was not ok which he claimed and other international spy agencies he should have been able to come up with something on that for the immigration judge because that's the person he needs to convince as well before the board who looks at what was before the immigration judge and certainly didn't show substantial evidence that that he actually works for this organization that didn't it was extremely sketchy and again he was able to remain in india for a year after he was supposed to after he supposedly left ra he said he stayed with family and friends and he was able to evade rob because he knew their techniques he was able to leave on his own passport so this shows that this large government agency that he says is the biggest agency in india directly under the prime minister nobody can know there's no you just will review over that they couldn't even go to his friend's houses and his relatives houses to find him those are the things that the board looked at him just didn't believe that fisher presented and after evidence to support his claim of persecution not before the immigration judge he did in a motion to remember for the board request cat consideration they deny the motion remember that then didn't deny cat think went ahead and considered on their own to novo and said that he had not met his burden on cat of showing that it was more likely than not that he'd be tortured and that evidence is sustained by the record before the immigration judge and the board it's a can't issue before us the cat issue would be before your honor because the board did address it on their own if they hadn't and it wouldn't but they did throw in a paragraph saying that he hadn't met his cat claim burden and this case just hasn't shown that if he returns to products where he lives that he will be persecuted either because he was a former member of movements may be detained and questioned they could be charged and prosecuted for things such as petitioner may possibly have been involved in with with either assisting terrorists or or persecuting speaks either way so he you know there  may be the prospect that he could be questioned on and possibly charge that that would not be torture or persecution if it's a legitimate government her as well that question ok thank you six through sixty seven and sixty eight i believe it was very detailed as to his background and experience with this agency and he volunteer the name of the founder of the agency to  points to detail possible consistent testimony as to his experiences in india with respect to corroborating evidence again i would submit that the nature of his work militates against him providing employment verification if you will or some other form of documentation to