where there is no legitimate prosecutorial purpose for government action against a person there arises a presumption of a political motivation i think we have that in this case i think if you look at the case and you look at the and humiliate the government of kenya overseas this cannot be a legitimate prosecutorial purpose what would my client do my client engaged in an intervention on behalf of i believe that you will find that the case falls within the area of political opinion you need only ask yourself three questions who are the persecutors what do they believe why do they believe in i believe there are two classes  persecutor in this case there's the persecutor that i call the catalyst persecutor the guy that sets the engine of persecution in motion he doesn't get his hands dirty in this case the catalyst persecutors are the corrupt minister be one and the challenging roommate who returns to kenya vowing that he would take revenge against my client the actual persecutors in this case are the kenyan c i v and perhaps a political scientist known as the us winners well what do they believe the record is clear that they believe that my client embarrassed and humiliated the kenyan government overseas a political why do they believe it your honour's the record is equally clear they believe it because that's what they were told we will see from this record that both sam to yacht the son of a powerful kenyan magistrate and whether the claim arose out of a contractual dispute or whether it was personal animus between individuals is not relevant to this claim it is not relevant to this claim because of the mixed mode of analysis which of the motive which manifests itself counsels claiming that perhaps the court might come to two differing opinions on this is without merit the court cannot say well we have eight possible you're honest with respect to the board of immigration appeals decision the board of immigration appeals has failed us all in this case they'd have failed us by abdicating their duty to give a reason based upon legitimate concerns let's assess the claim the heart of the claim the substance of the claim with a future persecution asylum claim what is the board give us the board gave us a dance which almost transpired between the saudi royal family the kenyan government and the united states press over the treatment of the maid and the placement of the maids with the saudi royal family your hon that you perform a review of the record similar to the review that was done in versus i am asked just last year that was that was your case your son's case i beg your pardon state report was very much supportive of this asylum claim if you look at the report the report was saying that conditions had improved improved somewhat from the year before and now if you look at the year before which is also part of the record by the way that the department of state report which was released in ninety seven you will see the one that the judge said all the conditions have improved so much you will see extra judicial killings you will see the government of kenya using colonial era lost it limits free expression you will see torture unchecked in that record further up your arse if you look at the amnesty international report which covered a period subsequent to the department of state report you will see  about past persecution it doesn't say there is no evidence of past persecution how do you explain that i'm sorry  were returned to the tonight i believe that the man was returning the passports made some statements to the three people who were present there with there will be consequences for you family lost jobs and there was no other reason given for why that all happened all of the sudden because of his actions well that that that is