not only instructive but i think they actually dictate the outcome of this case with respect to when does her arrest and physical mistreatment rise to the level of persecution for in this case is whether the threats to beatings after ms mendoza's political speech whether the constant nonstop on her personal phone and on her office phone threaten her to say to number one stop her political speech she was an outspoken opponent to the arena party a persecution when she was confronted by members of the arena party at a bus stop and while at gunpoint when the gun was pointed to her head these members for fifteen minutes be her on account of her political opinion and then later on they caused hot wax to be poured on her foot that caused rd degree burns and eventually forced her to flee her native all salvador when prepared for this case i couldn't help but be drawn to the hate crime statute start we has in the united states as discourse probably well aware and wisconsin versus e subject to a sentence enhanced meant on a kind of count that they have a broader effect in most kinds of crimes hate crime victims don't only include the actual victim that's targeted  also the communities to families and at times an entire nation take crimes have a sense enhanced meant because of the degradation and humiliation to which they subject the victim of an assault here i want to show the court the applicability or analogy of hate crimes to an assault and in this instance when does harassment rise to the level of persecution when it's accompanied by physical account of her political opinion and here her persecutors mistreatment of her was motivated to overcome a protected ground as we argued in our brief the aware number one when the when the arena party members kept calling her they wanted the names and numbers of the officers in the p d say her refusal to hand over that information was her protection was cancer not to her protection of the p d c party that could be viewed as an imputed political opinion because she was not sent in to the demands of the opposition party being the arena that's number one and number two part actual political opinion is in the record where i political functions she actually spoke out against the arena party and as your hon so i don't think there's any sort of leap in logic or stress that we have to wrestle with which we have to wrestle to find a political opinion so i believe that was her political opinion being not treated  as to protect the ground but only treated her as an employee of the p t c that incorrect well if i understand your honor's question you are correct that the board  treated ms mendoza as a mere employee who had administrative duties with the p d c they did not interpret her conduct as political opinion despite the fact that the arena party members actually told her the reason why they were mistreating her was on account of her speech where she was outspoken against the arena party  that we have to look at and persecutes and in terms of its context and as i understand your argument you are telling us that she was miscreated persecuted no seymour on behalf of the attorney general in this case the petitioner isn't eligible for asylum and withholding of her mobile because she failed herself lesh past persecution or that her fear of future harm is objectively reasonable and i'm going to pause there to say that those are both independent and dispositive grounds for denying relief and protection from removal and although opposing counsel has various arguments about next that the board clearly does not affirm the immigration judge's opinion on that ground so it's not properly here before the court what is before the court is whether or not the mistreatment that she suffered rises to the high level that is also not defined and in the i a e a is explain to your case law what amounts to persecution and here to share this claim is based on two instances of physical harm and numerous threats that she received from members of the opposing party that wanted human resource information that she had access to as a secretary for her party and the government's position your honor is is that even considered in the aggregate the record does not compel the conclusion that mr mendoza suffered mistreatment so severe as  constitute persecution and as i think we've already touched upon today an analysis about whether or not something rises to the level of persecution is based on the facts and circumstances of the specific case and it is context  here the agency clearly reviewed the record as a whole and apply the definition of persecution that could be to my strong case law the facts of this case and their record isn't coupled with the conclusion that the agency's decision unclear whether she was threatened with death every time and how imminent and menacing the threats were and persecution is meant to be an extreme concept that simply a bottom is not present in this case the government would also address establish that her figure was supported by the record and the government's position would be that it's speculative at best as given the evidence that she should knitted namely the court's better news articles and testimony there's nothing really to share with that members of pvc are specifically targeted let alone that she would be singled out for prosecution the government would also note that the record is devoid of evidence that there are even looking for thirty there is no objective evidence to explain why after all of these years they would still be looking for her and given that her claim of past mistreatment is based on the human resource of the nation that she had access to that would now be extremely old so in conclusion your honor is the record simply does not compel the conclusion that mission does the suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution and as a separate independent grounds for denying her application for a i actually don't know the answer that they're on i apologize it was suggested that it would be such a long term that they wouldn't still be interested in her but you do not know that for well at the time that she suffered the mistreatment her party the p municipality so i and she had said that they had always been in power at the t t c so the arena wasn't in power when she was contacted previously and you don't need a longer work you don't know what the situation is today submit that she's already satisfied the burden of showing past persecution which creates a presumption of a well founded fear future persecution so it would be the government's burden to miscreate at her fear is no longer and enhance it to what a crime is directly applicable to the persecution context because the context within which ms mendoza suffered this persecution was on account of her political opinion and i just want court to page seventy one of the administrative record when ms mendoza said testified to the following answer in a question you know what was told asked of you or said to you in the threats the following to stop attacking them or speaking not well of them because i would speak and about the farm the way of their political ideas i'm just reading practice and transcript so there is no issue with as i could see and i don't understand how the board reached its conclusion that she wasn't able to show the nexus when in fact she manifested her political opinion and she suffered all of this mission treatment on account of her manifest in the political opinion if the question or the no further questions be satisfied with just links to the internet or that would you like to have an attachment to the twenty eight