is a young my young woman from a remote corner of water mala near the mexican border she cannot speak or write in spanish let alone english she was twenty three years old married and expecting her first child when she found gorilla camp lets hidden in her own home when she confronted her husband about the material he beat her and left the house that evening guerrillas came to the house and beat and raped and forced her to go with them to the mountains states in september ninety five and in april of ninety six she applied affirmatively for asylum although she received acknowledgement of the application she was never contacted for an interview and she was picked up and placed in deportation proceedings in panel opinion in ventura was far better written by a very wise judge the question before this court today is whether missile cons kidnapping and rape were on account of her political opinion  she testified that she opposed the girl actions because she was a good catholic she said quote i did not want to go with them because i know that because they were whoppers and beat people up and they went into stores and robbed and i didn't want that agree with the girl well opinion mr ventura testified that he was not familiar with the ideology of the guerrillas but that he sympathized with the military not the guerrillas very similar to this case a lot of evidence persecution was motivated by the guerrillas just tired to conceal their criminal activity or to evade detection as opposed to how does she know her for harboring different political opinions or political opinions or religious beliefs how do we reconcile that in terms of i mean obviously because we have to look at it differently than if we're deciding it first right the and it was knowledge of status that she had and that knowledge of status caused her to confront her husband and once she confronted her husband the rest of the guerrillas descended on the house and beat her and and kidnapped her well because they have been afraid of other than her political opinions she was married to suppose they were all she had to do was to not confront her husband about this situation it's a confrontation with her husband and his knowledge anti guerrilla feelings that had tripped you know that obviously i think in this case trigger assumed that there was criminal behavior and because the behavior was printed on it wasn't political and i mean they always they always do that and in fact since since prosecution is criminal nearly every society it's almost redundant to say that behavior is criminal the fact that they hate us criminal has nothing whatsoever to do with one way or another with political motivation you have to look further to see whether there's political good morning john smiley from the department of justice in washington here on behalf of the attorney general i ask you to just jump in and do one thing by it because i think we are really familiar with the facts here  what would be wrong with finding that there is substantial in the in the record substantial evidence in the record if believed that compels the conclusion that the corellas had a dual next motive a persecuting the petitioner as opposed to one aim to keep from reporting them and the other to punish her for refusing to join them what would be wrong with joining the rulers and showed them you know all those things she's pregnant a lot of are right and then the next thing you know is friends come in they're from the guerrillas and like gang rape or so this is sort after she found these materials he beat her up the following day his guerrilla affiliates came and according to her testimony which was found not credible by the anything other than criminal there's really no evidence let alone did not show that they were motivated by a political opinion or any other characteristic of corrupt the way we run it you know who can appear before the nation court and all you know you can be at this bar the lawyer and appear before the immigration judge as you know that i know that one can be point correct because that would have to come back to the yes i know that because you know i mean does what you have if believe compel that that she meets this criteria but by the same token and that be i did not half on what was fair in terms of why didn't why the i j a didn't believe her because if it's all you know right now we're discussing in terms of debt you know it's almost like taking it as a pleading in a him for working for wealthy people on supporting the wretch and could be the soldiers told her during the rape that they knew of her involvement with a prior government and and rio's the guerrillas told her why they want to talk harm her they indicated that they kidnapped her because her family members have killed people and  her political opinion or imputed political opinion or was that on the board's view on account of criminal motives on the part of these guerrillas who wanted to punish or not for an opinion th to overcome up the cost of whatever was going on between her and this tremendous their compatriot well if we're not making a credibility call here right putting that aside correct we're more wondering about the next motives if you just look at all of that the power does in a credibility call i not i'm not necessarily agreeing with what i just heard i'm just trying i'm you know the court that is kind of the problem i've been thinking about is if we were to look at the case we say well given this you have an as and assuming she was credible the board could find that she was entitled to asylum therefore will remain and and let them determine the credibility issue because if you use the board could make that finding and then we'll let the board make the fine but on the other hand if we say well  we think they have to determine the credibility issue assuming she's credible then a finding of persecution on account of political opinion is compelled by her story then we the circumstances remand would be appropriate under ventra rather than the court deciding that the survey might agree with the i g that she was incredible and then the issue on appeal would be whether that was what compelled evidence and under its decision the motive here was not on account of political opinion and the whole  person who was being persecuted but that isn't necessary under this court's jurisprudence the nest are not us it is a case that tells us that we're allowed to look at common sense and if there is no other logical reason for the persecution there is absolutely no need for an expression of the particular beliefs that the gremlins are other persecutors might have my opponent also said that this was a personal dispute but it's it was a personal dispute about guerrilla activities about political activities that started as a disagreement between a husband and a wife about which side of the civil war they were on and it escalated from there and to ignore the political last closely and she after three months was a book sale find a time when no one was watching and simply walked off into the jungle and walked home took her three hours so there definitely were recruitment