immigration appeals for a minute and i'll petitioners applications for political asylum withholding of removal and relieve the torture convention based on the following three reasons first there is insubstantial evidence to find that the petitioners were only persecuted on account of personal revenge and not political opinion and second the evidence in the record compels the conclusion that council why i realize there is evidence from which the i j a could happen and arguably should have found that such an anti corruption position could not be persecution for political opinion just that it wasn't in this case and our deferential standard of review requires to deny the petition if that's permissible any evidence why isn't it permissible on the evidence there is not permissible in this particular case because the immigration judge failed completely to apply the legal standards set by this court in  article was directed at a government institution or whether it was directed against an individual whose conduct was aberrational this year the conduct was neither aberrational nor was the article directed specifically for that or that one individual now it is true that the local local authorities had three people you know work actual murder arson drug trafficking smuggling misappropriation of funds for the proviso that others were also involved i thinking if you were if you were in massachusetts and you wrote an article saying that it's a really bad thing that as some articles eventually did i don't know if it's true that the head of the mafia was brothers with the majority leader in the legislature and and that the mafia was in bed with the f b i at what the article said i don't know it's true i imagine that whoever wrote those articles was nervous about it that's absolutely true yes but there is if they if they would that be any different from this case honor because of the consequences that resulted from the publication of such an article there the issue becomes whether or not she was in fact persecuted as a result of the political opinion that was exposed in that particular article and given that eight law enforcement was mentioned in the article and that the article also involved ministers within the government higher government officials the article was the right not only at the individual but at the that the government institution in fact so what would differentiate massachusetts is what happened to her after the article that said that we must look to the state department reports to determine whether or not there would be such a fear of future persecution in this case the state department report is very persuasive regarding the possibility for example the state department report provides that there are numerous extra judicial killings that run that corruption is widespread and that these actions both the corruption and the extrajudicial killings go on punished by the government so given the evidence in the record given the evidence found state department reports regarding that issue there would be know your honor regarding other elements in the record that show that there was persecution of political opinion in addition to the article naming law enforcement naming other government officials there is also usually are of the posters that were placed throughout the town after the article was written and published the poster was clearly political in nature it was intended to discredit mr suicide and certainly it was probably intended to minimize the political harm that the article have cost the chairman and lastly them also the statements that were made to both the petitioners father when he was attacked and statements that were made to the petitioners husband when he was that attack to the point of unconsciousness i mean let me ask you something about that it looked to me like the father and the husband had real problems on account of the article but if maybe i'm forgetting something but as i recall the main thing that happened to haasan his she fell and bumped her nose and then her maid helped her inside your car as these individuals were coming to worse for her home and were beginning to break into that home she was able to flee her home and on the way out she didn't bump or nose causing a bloody nose an awful bump or stomach at the time she was pregnant and the issue here just was not whether that was the necessary harm amounting to either persecution or perhaps even torture but clearly every particular piece of evidence every attack in the end all of them bumping your nose and your stomach as you're running i don't think you could claim that that's persecution or torture i can order i wouldn't make that claim but i convention provides for both both physical cruelty or physical torture and the possibility of finding torture on the basis of some mental to be of mental anguish certainly it was clear severe mental anguish in this particular case as well your but you are again going back to the issue of persecution of chemical little opinion issues the statements that were made by the individuals in which they stated we know that your wife has been involved with the woman's organization both to the father answered her husband now we do not claim that there was persecution on account of a social group however those statements reveal that they were aware of that association the old hold on i'm confused about something is wrong what we're talking about is past persecution of her rather than a well founded fear of persecution of her right now i can see where they you have beatings and and such of her husband and her father and her brother could give rise to a well founded fear but i can see where their past persecution corruption is really a major political issue in many countries of the world opposing corruption there are people who hold the political opinion that the main thing that makes this third world third world is that corruption imposes such a heavy tax on enterprise and industry and opposing corruption can be a very significant political action this lady opposed corruption in the newspaper and this corruption like all serious corruption was tied to the government wasn't just that one crock as the i j a seemed to say the crook had protection according to her article at why isn't if what was done to her doing and were protesting and the article also said also i mean that clearly it's not like the whole government unit was going along with what this guy wanted to do a lot of people were not also the article at the end of the article the author acts really is asking for help you know sort of what's going up the ladder going up stairs to try to get help from the home minister so clearly the article doesn't suggest in the whole country is corrupt or the whole government is corrupt but rather that other people at the same level basically as the chairman and above the chairman are not corrupt and are people that she is calling you know expects their help and is calling for their the prosecutor and the person who was trying to retaliate i was part of the government and there were a lot of different political parties and that situation as a whole maybe it's political that is not the testimony same thing i cite to the record to fifty nine i think of one point he made some suggestion of sixty five that it might have something to do with the women's activities but then he sort of recanted to ninety two there's also material in the record about again the total emphasis is on the fact that she wrote the article not on any wider you know political matters to this i think if you if you fairly read also there's decides the article which she criticizes the chairman and the record there's another article contemporaneous article which was describing the retaliation that was taken against her and her family that's at three seventy five to eighty one and that article also talks about you know he didn't share many didn't like this criticism and he wanted revenge so that's that's definitely the theme a comes across over and over again in the administrative with the case of somebody attacking corruption within the government itself this is a case where a corrupt person has some kind of calls into the government but he is not the government and so war when it comes to and they were political opponents right i think there are different political parties that's not the situation here because most people are not part of the government and you don't institution or against individuals as corruptions aberrational now already tried to to explain our position that we think in the situation of the chairman even though he had running dogs if you will that was still corruption that was aberrational because the that article shows that she also thought that other parts of of the the government were not corrupt ok now getting back to mixed motives i think this is a question here o persecuted on account of political opinion the political asylum application provides her claim was based on political asylum and page one twenty three of the records she provides that the chairman was trying to harm her politically there's evidence in the record that she never stated he's not trying to harm me politically she said