disappeared he moved he was pursued in guatemala city he fled the country to honduras he returned back briefly within ten days people had come to his home looking for him by name it was a case of if i remember correctly or the asylum officer denied asylum the immigration judge granted  the courts have made a lot of the standard of review and immigration case and what the b i n g has done here is to simply conveniently omit threaten the disappearances of two of the other four student group leaders i mean this is not some casual thing where you not really sure whether whether the prosecutor intends to follow through on its threats or not it was quite active in politics in guatemala about six years before the petitioner the persecutor in that case was not the guatemalan government the persecutor in that case was a fairly unknown political party even at the time report provides information only on general grounds and does indicate that there are many cases of persecution on the part of police officers and others actions which are committed with impunity this is not is not the sort of evidence which would make the mollen government as a guerilla sympathetic sizer now the only evidence in the record on that point is the doors are meeting so i believe that certainly is a clear reference to that particular meeting in the b i opinion because there simply is nothing detail in the in the asylum hearing and i think it's important to note that in the asylum hearing petitioner admitted that he was not threatened at that meeting there was no intimidation at that meaning that there was no force there was no threat of force there were no guards the record that those events activities helping the local indigenous poor other than the fact that they occurred after the oars are meeting now i will not see any alternative explanation available from the record and whilst did it happen i will not say i will not disagree with the conclusion that a reasonable fact finder could have found in petitioners favor but that's not the standard here the standard is not a question of that the government offer of one now there are there are facts upon which one could suggest another alternative for example there are facts in the record indicating that petitioner deserted from the army at some point and there's certainly facts known in the country report indicating that this was a a violent time in a violent country and there was a great deal of violence on all sorts of all sorts of levels the question however if these students went for the meeting with others who are against four or five how many survive guerrillas he also tells them we know who you're dealing with and then very shortly there are threatening calls and then to almost half of the student delegation that went to this things here are first of all you've summarized what occurred over a period of i believe it was about eight months so there is some span of time that occurring here i thought the telephone calls came within days of the meeting and my wrong all of phone calls did the disappearance of the first one was i believe seven or eight months later and it was while petitioner was in this country that he indicated he received a letter from his mother that one of his colleagues may have i think we understand the standard of review i'm i'm just asking you to help us see where their answer possible hypotheses that are you know in a record that from which we could make that conclusion well the concert report that's in the record indicates that there was a great deal to the petitioner claimed that because of his political activities in that case i believe it was testifying as a witness as a police officer he'd been put on a political hit list by a person particular political party he had received death threats with the stink the markings some of his colleagues had been killed but on that basis the this court found that there was insufficient evidence of persecution first of all because there had been no close visible confrontation and that's certainly lacking here and then although it could be evidence of future persecution and we don't dispute that the evidence of the events here could have been considered rationally as evidence of future persecution however the be found looking interpretation of that report was that the type of persecution that the petitioner feared had abated and there's certainly nothing in that country report that indicates that people who were helping the local poor were being persecuted by the government it says  and on that basis alone even if you disagree with the first two points as to whether there was past persecution or whether there was a showing that the activities were on account of political opinion the third point would still be sufficient to sustain th no court founders constituted past persecution and the immigration service did not rebut the fear of future persecution the court noted that the in that case ninety six state department report corroborated the petitioners fears persecutions if anything  a similar case the court was using ninety eight state report the court found that the ninety eight report was insufficient to establish change to simply say that they civil war hasn't begun it's not enough there needs to be a finding as to the persecution and feared and faced by the particular petitioner in the case in order to satisfy change country conditions in a case in which the petitioner has faced past persecution thank you very much for your argument i think both counsel for their arguments the case just argued will be submitted for decision course going to stand in recess for about ten minutes