establish past persecution because she was not arrested or harmed in guatemala and she was not hard on account of the first issue briefly because i think that everything was pretty much fleshed out in the briefings but we're we're looking at something where there's numerous case law in case there has been just a right of physical harm and similar factual situations as well where the girls have have approached an individual who state reports indicating that it's a standard practice for the gross to go to the university campuses to recruit people and i'm not concerned with what their standard practice is i'm concerned with what they  suffered increased as time went on saw her at her home at that point she said that i'm getting out of here i don't want to take the chance that at that at that point she she told the impunity political opinion and the idea that an individual who by refusing to join forces with the girl as has stated an opinion by taking a neutral and was active in the campaign of mr carpio who was running for president she was opposed to the girl forces and what they stood for she need that clear to them by stating that she refused to join them when she said i'll join you or because they're her pedia harassment then she was looking at the situation where she knew that there was going to be re if she did in fact stay there the last issue that is present in this case now whether it's a  all they did was to make the country report thing that the situation has changed in fact that the i a e a has adopted that fact and found that she doesn't stuff she doesn't she's not threatened with any possible future harm i i think it's clear from the country reports themselves that there's there are still problems in guatemala i have clients come in every day who say they know people who are in a similar situation and they go back to  to be seen or heard from again and this exists whether they came to a peace accord back in ninety six or ninety five whenever it was did not change the situation in guatemala that great you know we have to be a world record evidence though and that they somehow by themselves from hell the finding of the conclusion that she was persecuted this is an error both in fact and in law and that the legal error is and which shows that she is mistaken is best articulated in this court's decision in the room case which both parties have sided and in when the court stated in two thousand i believe quote threats standing alone however constitute persecution and only a small category of cases and only when the threats are so many saying as to cause actual suffering or harm now in this case there were no direct threats at any time and petitioner concedes as and that she wouldn't want that to happen to her and of course your plan that she didn't the court in when added and this is what i think is most obvious and here is the court added quote putting the burden of proof every time an asylum applica found absolutely are her wise she tends to make she tends to cast every action of the recruiter's as an individual act of persecution for example argues that simply calling her by her own name and joining their meeting after the first meeting at the bus stop and that that somehow was psychological persecution in itself that's not that's not the case all there are some years after the peace accords returning to guatemala particularly where the person is a low level or was ten years ago a low level perhaps member perhaps associate of a political group persecution least not any strong evidence of any kind of persecution and certainly has returned to then with the burden remaining with her or she would have to show that they were interested in her on account of her political opinion and  feared reasonably some sort of future harm if she were to return well as i started to say there is there is no evidence that she expressed a political opinion indeed she said that she that she that  expressed a political opinion by refusing to join but the record evidence is clear she agreed to join the guerrillas she said record ninety one that she lied and i'm not quoting that's paraphrasing she lied but she's the word lied and told the man she would join their costs and then she started by some time in order to help her to get out of out of guatemala at that time that's that's her own testimony but when they first met her no more than they're there as as counsel has suggested this recruitment effort on a university campus that they later found out her name and that it happens to be similar to a presidential candidate question about it before the record is clear that before the first meeting with potentially before the first meeting mr carpio had already been killed he was he was at that time debt the record at page one seventeen as he was killed in july of ninety three and she says that the first meeting was not until august so that they might be interested in her because of her support of this candidate i don't think an inference can reasonably be drawn there certainly the evidence does not compel that conclusion even if as counsel said that she did refuse to join these and then the supreme court of the united states has very clearly spoken to that question and one of the cases that are court says points to this exact language in quotes that in our experience only party leaders or high profile activists generally would be vulnerable to such harassment and usually only in their home communit practice for the guerrillas do they have to come up to someone and say will kill you you'll disappear you know no one will ever see you again i don't think that that is what's required by the line in this case the fact that don't didn't have those girls come into court and state that they approached her based on her political opinion there's no way that she could do that in the circumstances indicate that maybe the first occasion where they didn't the persecution and if the court finds that that gary has suffered past persecution then they don't even have to address and you don't even have to address that but wall of the individual's home demanding that he join their forces and threatening that they would harm him if he didn't exactly what the indicated but they were one with two years apart from the first one nothing nothing that happened in between that that threatened retaliation against her family if she did not comply with the girl's request and the the finding that that individual had suffered past persecution i don't know how we could be a has it has affected we made it impossible to meet that burden by insisting that there is some kind of physical harm