weakly different from how that might arise in your asylum or withholding what happens with burden shifting under attack she doesn't have does she have of finding a past persecution who has the burden of knowing that  to further but that they do need to look at the nature of the convictions so it seems to me that the v a appropriately considered what was it was for burglary of a occupied dwelling or whatever california call so they look at burglary and then they go beyond that to the next factor which is the circumstances and underlying facts which they did i don't think that's beyond i think it's beyond dispute and you may think they didn't do it came home in the middle of the crime which is a particularly dangerous situation does it have i mean are you saying it has to result in injury and violence for it to be particularly dangerous  decision where it says that that you know the nature of the inherent danger in residential burglary is revealed in a case like this where it's not lesser cracks that homeowners return trying that time and then it addressing why a particular crime the facts of a particular crime were dangerous where they just it was a discussion in general of what happened in her green it's a discussion about what happened in a burglary for example that there might deciding this and they consider the pre sentence report and probation officers assessment and what she said at the time were her reasons that she knew money is what she said she never said she was forced to rest to napping anything s was at the time of the program and the board just gave greater weight to the probation officers report opposed to her testimony and on the abuse of discretion deferential review its software this or three way that it needs to look at whether considered the proper factors it didn't consider all the evidence yet that said and so the abuse of discretion standard she can't meet that standard here we have to analyze and the st one is a private actor the direct perpetrator and then the nd one is the the government goal actor and his or her response or non response when and that finding was based on the totality of the circumstances of the board and the immigration judge to look at the fact that they knew ms friends generally feared mr lopez he did  abuse her horribly in the past for many years but then it looked to the relocation issue and it said yes there was this one incident where he tracked her down back to her hometown but there's nothing invited i don't know what the legal standard how it would apply here if she may lose but this is just a disaster waiting to happen i understand those concerns and the money of exaggeration and so i think we are dealing with a very tough record a very difficult situation but in the end we have one individual her former partner he seems nothing more than a common criminal he has no connection t objective evidence and has the more likely to not standard and on and on judicial review it's for the record evidence alga conclusion that that daniel will will find her and and torture her and it  does at least in two thousand and ten he had the desire to go and locate her and find her in her hometown but does he have the ability to find her throughout the country other than seawater and her hometown and  the decision at all it's a catchall statement that the court considered all the evidence and testimony and then goes directly into citing the probation report and the government did the same saying in its analysis and talk about very briefly about the question of dangerousness and whether the proper analysis is whether mr president's conduct at the moment of the crime was dangerous or whether the question is is a presumption of dangerousness you know going forward