a seems to have agreed that the only mistreatment she suffered because of that was a was a threat a verbal threat and that that didn't arise to the level of past persecution why why isn't that happening what's the problem with that finally recognizing that we review that for substantial evidence but our case law seems to say a single threat doesn't necessarily a her so tell me what case you've got that says that compels a finding of past persecution i understand the board might find or the i j a my five past persecution based on it but we've got a lot of cases that say what i have to see if i'm sorry if i've got the wrong part of the record your card says her father tried to take advantage of her and tried to touch your privates and then another time he tried to touch her breasts tried to it was a single isolated incident also the case file has at least some pattern of the past this one incident and it wasn't a threat a future harm if she did not say what you mean i understand your argument but then why doesn't it give her a reasonable fear of future persecution you know words i'm not sure you can say it doesn't qualify for past persecution because they were going to do it right away it was a thread about doing something in the future but start harm i relocated elsewhere in the country and while i was trying to i was trying to look at this case without looking at the relocation finding but on the relocation  finding there's the record really support the notion that she could really relocate anywhere in the country and be beyond the scope of this gag it's her burden to show that relocation was not a reasonable and under the circumstances it is reasonable for her to relocate old was she at the time at the time she was approximately nineteen years old and her fear is premised on these gang members  year old female to relook relocate to another part of the country where she has no family asian relocation the question is not only whether it will escape or whether it's reasonable to expect relocate elsewhere in the country and moreover her claims for future persecution are further undermined by the fact that so many such rabid family members remain in the country unharmed she said that her brother was also on frightened by the gang members but he was not harmed it was just another threat for other siblings her mother who are also related to her father and in the familiar relationship have remained there persecution but the record compels the conclusion that she had a reasonable fear of future persecution and who with the burden lied to demonstrate that relocation was possible up on that let's assume that we disagreed with the board's conclusion that past persecution had not been shown right so we just she's entitled to a presumption and that scenario would be in that scenario need to remand for the  approach that last finding with the correct burden of proof in mind other words if we found past persecution it would be the government's burden to overcome that presumption here is the board seems to have found no two no i i think you're right i'm asking if we found past persecution which was the premise of judge watchwords question then wouldn't we have to remand because the board didn't allocate the burden of overcoming that that it's been a number of years and her family members although threatened perhaps like her never suffered any future harm after the threat is that enough to is that enough to establish that she did didn't have a reasonable fear