people quite amala found themselves trapped in the middle of a power struggle in which guerrillas selectively killed indians they accused of cooperated with the military and the military carried out a well documented string of massacres of indians suspected of cooperated with the guerrill just a little louder yes he's having trouble hearing you language he was raised as a young man to not speak the language it's actually a matter of survival in that you not use the digits languages but his grandparents all spoke as did his aunt is decision they reduce this to a one time incident and i'm just trying to set the context here the basis is that he was actually taken hostage he was tied up he was threatened he was told not to continue his small business which was an entrepreneurial business of selling clothing which the grill it was contrary to the guerrillas political agenda of being a communist oriented you were in g the revolutionary guerrillas at that time were opposed to the sort of entrepreneurial endeavors and were opposed to the government and indigenous person was very much at the mercy of guerrillas as they were of the military and when this occurred to him it was  very traumatic event which drastically changed his life he was able to carry on with his livelihood the board found that this was not did not amount to pass persecution they found that it was traveling salesman selling clothes what is how are we supposed to distinguish this from mere robbery well you know what is there that makes us think that they stopped him and warned him because of his political views or because he was a his credible testimony i think it's the best evidence we have here incredible testimony alone of course can be sufficient he says they told me if i will keep selling stuff they will either take me or kill me they didn't like the idea that one can survive by himself they ti that all they've done is they've they've launched them they haven't been we again we don't have any reference whatsoever he didn't say they told me just to not come into this area because i'm t j they told me not to come in here because because people with my political at it you know trying to understand the clearest significance here and he understood it to mean if they saw him again selling clothing they would kill him well that was the turn of tremendous strife yes in the country and there were a lot of people who were beaten and a lot of things ugly things were happening  that he has a well founded fear of future persecution is that's how i kind of read it right i mean the why do you say the evidence tells us to conclude that he has a well founded fear so i think a matter of five or six months which is what we're talking about here in which he says he is not he said i wouldn't be able to keep doing what i was doing to survive and i'd have then i'd have to leave well i thought his founded fear would be would be measured not from the time he left but from the time that the tenth of the hearing the answer you about he submitted numerous reports from amnesty international most particularly several reports as well as from the state department and those were dated from two thousand through two thousand and three just prior to the board's decision and  he he cites it in our briefing and he shows they're reporting human rights meltdown so severe at the tearing human rights situation and the state department report two thousand and two says problems remained and  the security forces and even some guerrilla activities were still remained so that the peace accords in ninety six by two thousand and two all of the human rights reports are saying of the situation is actually getting worse is still not under control attempted to leave the village and strike out on their own and earn money in make a living not just live off the land in dire poverty you have used your time we helped you to use it it will give you a minute on r finding to the contrary nor does it rise to the level of a well founded fear of future persecution because it does not compel a finding to the contrary in terms of withholding of removal there is not of their probability that has been made either that would sort of substantiate that claim if the lower measure for asylum is not met than the measure for withholding of removal is also not met of the convention against torture that claim was denied by him by the immigration judge under alone correct and hard so there was a direct confrontation where the petitioner was actually beaten by people who overheard him speaking albanian and in limb there was no direct face to face confrontation as in this case but i feel that those cases where it's clear we have both broken in terms of those that compel a finding again the government lie on the substantial evidence standard as well i'm just asking about the legal standard where you have both both the threat and the detention  in physical confrontation you're asking whether i actually have any cases that say that that present that situation you're asking if there are any cases with that particular situation tied up taken hostage put in a building in the building was set on fire both cases the court found passed prosecution and on account of imputed political opinion and lopez that it was that pro establishment opinion because of working physical confrontation ventura and lopez with a direct taking hostage tied up physical confrontation both cases this court found past persecution and on account of the imputed political opinion and i would say this is clearly between those