account of imputed political opinion rather than on account of say retaliation or something to do with drug trafficking right yes that is correct  drug debts and all sorts of violence going on but that's not political well your honor i would beg to differ i believe that the us foreign policy regarding plan colombia which deals with the eradication of the control of cocoa crops it's political the kosher but that's not the question and he's not fearing persecution on part on account of the united states where he's fearing persecution on account of in a couple that really politics and drug trafficking are actually inextricably intertwined in colombia and that's evident by the u s foreign policy in clubs and plan colombia and the record states that through sixty  all of the record in the us none of the none of this was taken into account service given to it at both levels however the i j a actually doesn't look like he specifically found that he kind of left it hey i think that he stated something like as for reasons that will be discussed later i do not to the failure to show a connection to a protected ground i start with the principle that opposing the criminal nonpolitical goals of a criminal organization is not a political opinion and i don't use the coarse language and one rainy there is no difference of political philosophies involved imputed or otherwise in other words an organization should have a political objective for one's opposition to it to be a political opinion l nexus between his claim fear of persecution and a protected ground under the act fail to establish a connection between any protected ground under the act here all we have to switch he we have substantial testimony against that he want to base cartel which no one knew about evidence you can point to that anyone knew about it so if the aerial felix organization seeks to harm him it would be for retribution if they knew about it for what he did or possibly to intimidate other people to do not testify against them but there's no evidence that they wouldn't shoot a political opinions on there simply is no evidence on on that issue it's really no compelling evidence and i think what he what mr lewis seeks to do is to confuse the colombian government civil war with rebel groups such as  well known that that cartels are intertwined with the government in colombia and that that's why our government at odds politically with the colombian government evidence on that issue there's no certainly no compelling evidence which show that the cartel would would view this is anything other than a criminal issue and has an attempt by the cartel to prevent someone from testifying against its members to stop its criminal activities brioni where that satish moore was an informant for an opposing political force that the people on the other side would go after him as an informant and but here that's not what the relationship is and so it is somewhat more difficult to see how it is political ad all  they align with the paramilitary groups for control of the narcotics produced production and trafficking and when you take that and you find that the government opposition the guerrilla groups are funded by millions of narco dollars that makes this political this brings us into