cases there is a pattern of issues that arise in these these type of cases the first issue i'd like to address is that issue of credibility the immigration judge in this case did not make an explicit credibility finding and the law of the circuit the absence of an explicit credibility finding of the court should presume that the testimony is credible and accord the  found this simply with her reasons were simply legally insufficient once they've been credited i don't think he did that because he required cooperation and the fact that he leans so heavily on the requirement of corroboration indicates that he didn't accord the the  and imputing any of that difficulty her well act time let alone now or when the former i mean how do you respond to that there is an absence of any other explanation like there's evidence that they had mentioned his military papers was why they came there and i think that what the what the government argues in its opposition brief is that this would be on account of because they weren't trying to punish him for his former military service but because they wanted something from the one his military papers but you could also interpret that to mean that they were asking for his allegiance they wanted his papers as a way of of showing that he was no longer why these people would invade the home so many times why they would engage in such a violent no no evidence offered to explain is not the same as an explanation when you have when you have the burden of proof saying that there's no other explanation is trying to burden back on the government to explain why well she she did explain she did identify them as being a role as a fight them as has come into the home because of her father's past military service she a presented evidence that that the men who came to the home we've heard her father's past military service so there was there was evidence to show that that was the reason their subjective motives for coming there that she presented and there was no evidence offered at all by the government to rebut that so even if she does if she has the burden she presented the evidence there is nothing to show that there was any other reason that's why you are hearing that up you want to make any comment on change  but the the only evidence offered was this profile which was offered by the attorney represented by the government they made no explanation why they were offering that evidence of to the record they didn't point to any passage in that in that profile the immigration judge didn't there is no individual analysis as the court requires of a particular claim for instance that report does not at all address the the scenario that was presented by this application which which is violence directed against former combatants and their families complaint it's not even referred to in this profile the profile doesn't say anything about whether internal or relocation by mrs marteen is possible when she came from a department of the capitol which apparently is not even one of the conflict so the immigration judge didn't really rely on the other profile and the profile doesn't engage in the individual analysis that the court requires for this particular claim so i don't see how the country profile necessarily   being assaulted at gunpoint she herself was sexually molested she was possibly scarred for life as a result of a fire that she's claims were possible so that by these girls there's no don't believe that the that this case at the level of the deportation hearing got that far your honor because i think that when the when the immigration judge made its legal errors and said that she had not proven past persecution it stops if in fact the only evidence here is this profile and what the only thing this profile says about a claim like hers is that the girls are still there and the girls are still engaging in the exact type of of of misconduct and violence that she complains of in her application for a so we can see we are here to speculate and i don't think the court can underpin torah engage in that kind of perspective analysis it's really restricted to the evidence that was received that the deportation hearing and i don't think that the government statutorily protected ground or that she has a well founded fear of persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground the immigration judge did credit her story there was no adverse credibility finding and simply found that there was not enough there was not enough and in fact made note of the fact that at points she had even exaggerated her claim in her asylum application where she said that her father was bleeding to death and that attempted to rape her she tried to make it more than it was now the government is not disputing that there was something that happened and that that something that happened could very well have been traumatic and something that petitioner will live with for the rest of her life having somebody come into your home and assault your family members and assault you that's a terrible thing to happen but  evidence in the record that it happened based on her political opinion or her religion or her race or her ethnicity or her membership in a particular social group the evidence showed that her father had been in the army overthrow of the guatemalan government that's correct however you're on aren't there there are there ample cases from from the circuit and other circuits discussing that civil unrest and conditions of violence and civil war and that's sort of thing are not enough to qualify as persecution on account of a protected ground essentially if everybody who suffered under the conditions you were was the immigration judge requiring corroboration of the fact well the immigration judge noted that there was no evidence specific evidence about when the father left the military position or testified it was approximately a year before these incidents occurred what his rank was what his activities were which would all have bolstered her claim which is implied and never because her claim was weak because she has the burden of proof and her claim was weak and let me point out that even if we we this court reaches the conclusion that that specific finding by the immigration judge that corroboration would have been useful was in error it was harmless error if we assume whatever we want to assume which your honor pointed out we really aren't supposed to be doing because petitioner here has the burden of proof if we assume that what she said is true that he was in the army and that he left a year before these events occurred what we have here is her testimony that the guerrillas said that they were looking for some papers and we don't know why they were looking for papers counsel suggested maybe it was to take the papers so that that would sort of force the father to turn over his allegiance to the guerrillas maybe but that was not put the record by the petitioner here the petitioner made one statement unsupported with anything in terms of what that she heard someone say this that she believed the guerrillas were wanted that wanted her father to join them but again recruitment efforts by a guerilla group are not grounds for a finding of persecution on account of a protected ground because the concrete poured the country report indicates that although there has been a peace accord and the guerrillas have disarmed there is continuing violence however that violence is directed primarily at media officials and human rights activists and that that violence is generally targeted in areas where there's a large indian population petitioner presented no evidence as your honor was pointing out that she faces persecution if she were to return to guatemala but she personally the fact that the state department court says there's still violence is not enough for her to overcome the hurdle of her burden of proof wanted the father to join them because the second time they came to the house they were there and petitioner and her mother were there and they assaulted petitioner and her mother and when the father arrived they left they didn't have any conversation with him they didn't try to get anything out of him if that isn't just coming into someone's house and assaulting them i don't know i don't know what is petition remained in guatemala with her parents for two months after this last event and she testified about she did not testify about any other occurrences her parents remain for another three months after she left for the united states before they left for mexico and again there was no evidence put into the record that anything else happened to petitioners parents after she had left there simply is no evidence in the record to support overturning the immigration judge's decision that there was no persecution on account of a protected ground and that she does not have a well founded fear on account of a protected ground there are no other questions i don't think so thank you very much