as well as the murder of a close family and neighbor friend and i'd also like to discuss the persecution he suffered as an adult when he returned to guatemala after going to rely on the division which makes people disappear and that if he refused to report for military service they would place him into a pit in the ground product called a collar both and feed him by throwing food to joining the compulsory military service it was already seven years was it was he didn't come back and forth he did come back a few times to visit his family and as you may recall from the persecution and that they have not failed to fail to meet that burden to overcome the presumption and the only bases that they've relied on are generalized country condition and i think that i think that i think that is true but the military is the government is still in control of the military and there's just spend no and corey or nelson whatsoever of what happens to  refugees who are forced to return to guatemala and in this situation the person flooded guatemala just because of his refusal to concede to the government's demands to serve in the military to carry his burden of proof in this case his case was then reviewed by the board of immigration appeals at the third level which also declined to grant asylum petition has three bases for his case at any point in any of the proceedings that you just listed did any officer of the government and respondent has conceded that petitioner has established past persecution based not on what happened to him but on based on what happened to his children so the issue before the court is whether the presumption of a well founded which that presumption must be rebutted are his fear of being identified as a gorilla his identity ethnically as the mind and he is desire not to serve in the military to avoid the draft in guatemala the immigration judge reasonably found based upon evidence in the record that the fundamental changes that had occurred with the peace accords of rights hundred ninety six essentially removed the first two grounds that the guerrillas are now serving the government cabinet officers and judges there at the peace accord in one nine hundred ninety six was that sea change in guatemala and this court  recognize it is the controlling precedent here and so we we don't want to discuss with great argue with you about that it's not necessary for the resolution of this case which can easily be disposed of on the basis of the trend of the finding of the immigration judge where he it's true country ports don't list people's names that this court has addressed very directly in the case of so and so doug even i apologize i will provide the court and a new twenty eight j letter a second twenty j letter with some additional resource for information on political situations and poor nations and with regard to the individual lies finding they said where the immigration judge rationally construes ambiguous or somewhat contradictory country report immigration judge is the proper person to rationalizing construe all of the evidence that's in the country for it so i might continue the quote from the so s o w e case of two thousand and eight where the immigration judge rationally construe the us are somewhat contradictory country report and provides an individual eyes on the allisons of how change conditions will affect the specific petitioners situation  substantial evidence will support the agency determination what this means is that the country port deals with the specific claims of this petitioner that he is a miami and discriminated ethnically and they deal with the specific claims that he would to the army to measure that i may be mistaken but i thought you had to measure that in terms of verdun before this court is to show that the facts are so overwhelming that they compel the comment is the reason that's that's that's distinct because we have a judgment that has been made and we're now before the court and for that lack of any adverse credibility finding he says that any testified i know my life i'm afraid to return i know my life would be in danger you know many cases  people returned they had problems in the army is still murdering people so i've made a question that three compelling i would say i would argue that no it is not because each one of those three elements makes clear that considerable change has occurred in guatemala and this court is his health similarly so i think we should satisfy the grilling you don't we can't add up zeros and come up with a positive some if gorilla set aside that is turning out to the m components that that you addressed and then my and i would look to two cases that this court and i apologize i will i will provide a twenty each a case for these but these are recent cases and i thought it would be of interest to the court to know what is going on in guatemala  court held that the immigration judge found that the forms the serious persecution of indigenous people were in the context of the going war which is now ended the sea change that occurred in one nine hundred ninety six the state department reports ensuring that this court is addressed these two questions and i would simply if i might just have thirty seconds to sum up by saying that that that no in response to your question you can't add up three things each of which has been resolved to it to not be substantial and come up with anything that is itself substantial and the petition for review for that reason should be denied is a reasonable decision and there's no compelling reason reason