away in war over they never gave mr toogood an opportunity to explain why such evidence would not have been recently attainable so we believe that you know it was clearly something that the immigration judge and the board of immigration time and clearly to obtain evidence to research country conditions also was was very difficult for him and at no point was he given the opportunity explain you know why he was not able to reasonably obtain such evidence and the immigration judge or the board of immigration appeals never explained what type of evidence they had wanted to see so so we believe that there was error in that sense your honour's but i want you to turn to their eyes as i understand your argument as a matter of law the board of immigration appeals makes a mistake if it used the federal court of appeals standard  you where we would have to overcome an administrative signing as opposed to its own standard for review where it is he primary review it is they were a viewer of the immigration judges findings now they give some deference to the fact findings credibility but it's different but i'm i'm not one hundred percent sure the board made that mistake they do say assuming the respondents credibility so they're trying to take that off the table we conclude it is past experiences in cameroon while distinctly unpleasant did not reach the level of persecution well that's a that statement doesn't come packaged with any standard of review it sounds to me like they're pointed to this court's case law and so while it may be this you know these circumstances are not the exact same as circuit from from that from this court we would ask the court to consider that the same error to the court specifically stated that the immigration judge import i turn the system upside down if they use this court's deferential decisions as sitting new lower floors for human cruelty than our immigration law says must be it was within our discretion to come to this conclusion in other instances as well and that's our main point your honor your honor that specifically the board of immigration appeals did not put that sentence in there so we have no way do i speculate as to what the board was thinking and that's why  is warranted here as as in that two page decision from the board of immigration appeals it has that rule section and then turns to the persecution or that the claim persecution by a petitioner and we do believe that substantial evidence about what's been going on in cameroon and more lawyer a not that basic critic been more evidence before the board but who does that mean it's wasn't his burden to inform the board of the violent nature the linguistic division in cameroon your honor we would underscore the fact that the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals operate in agencies they're supposed to be expert agencies they're supposed to be specialists there's this is the fundamental reports we don't have any i assume that would be reflected in the state department's country reports correct your honor and you know again we would just underscore the fact that he was appearing pro se that he didn't have access to those materials but that the immigration judge a board issues that bother me one is is this point that i was discussing with mr seyfried just because a particular record doesn't compel finding out persecution past persecution doesn't mean that the board itself wouldn't be entitled to find past persecution its role is different from the role of review in court so it's a little troubling for the for the board just to say well because the court didn't think it was aboard an expert agency or not i mean do you know anything about what's going on in other countries around the world or is it just approaching every case a tabula rasa are assuming that they're all exactly like the united states i mean fortunately in the united states we don't have a hot worry over which language people speak but that does happen sometimes yes your honor well i would to answer your second point first i would say that the board is limited to the evidence that was submitted in the record so when the board something about you know south sudan is it is just the board approach that from the point of view that everything is a utopia there or what is the borg do know i think the board look at what the evidence was and the record and makes the decision and there is the country report in this case was in the record and did not contain information regarding the angle file and francophone issues this burden to to prove his case and the so we make this impossible for people right we put them in detention they're pro state they have no library they have no right to counsel so we just sort of stacked the deck no your honor they are actually in this case encourage petition or just make supporting evidence and actually i was going to find it though did he have computer access while he had an aunt that lived in the united states and he said he would contact her to get  a letter from his mother that's not the same that's not the same as a good package of evidence to show that the violence he experienced because of his political support for the endless phone faction interest in him even after eastgate police announced he your honor we would argue that the record still does not share a well founded fear of persecution based on objective evidence because he there was six months in between when he was first arrested and when he was found again he said he told me they don't know that i'm sorry he was in hiding i understand that's true but he testified that they did not statement that the marks are still on his body that's not in the record that is just that it's just counsellors argument  know we don't have evidence that they still look for him in cameroon because we don't have a statement from any of his family members and in other cases where we see a well founded fear of persecution we usually have some sort of evidence support its general definition of persecution and just for its propositions that minor injuries do not rise to the level of persecution the board looks to whether the evidence was support demonstrate that minor injuries do not rise to the level of persecution not that the board's not applying the standard that the evidence whether the evidence compels applying a persecution now the board  know speculate as to what the board was thinking and i think that and is clearly clearly warranted we would also just touch on the past persecution that petitioner suffered that this court held in santa cove what human psychological type of persecution the threat of harm that he suffered you know in clearly the board of immigration appeals mischaracterizes all of these you know incidences and circumstances that are suffered as just