and therefore the subjective part of the examination for asylum claim purposes was met she could not find an objective reasonable basis in order to grant the asylum claim however time as a result of his failure of the burden of proof to show her persecution that's what she's claiming and and basically the court failed to i believe the court that or is that just a simple failure of proof because the evidence is just so conclusive and it's not in anybody's it's not his fault it's just that he testified to what he saw  and what what happened but the fact finder listened to that testimony and said i can't tell from what he's able to tell me i think it was persecution i think even if that if that were true that there was sufficient evidence in front of the court to make a determination on the less stringent standards standard that these granting asylum application it's not find that withholding of removal as that is a more stringent stand partly because there is an argument that he was his family was a victim of persecution by the sort of terrorist group a t that time in his country but there where that would be entirely up to speculation would on this record as to whether his family was the target  you can look at circumstances or events independently and just say well they're just acts of violence or random occurrences that just happened but in this circuit the court looks at the underlying issue behind the events that led to that act of violence what is the underlying issue in this case that makes whatever happened to  family political or religious or ethnicity of persecution rather than a crime well that the two  linking unrelated events which causes someone to believe that maybe there's a more than a mere coincidence here is the fact that one of the put the appellants father was driving a government mark vehicle working in the course and scope of his duties and was stopped by the opposing political group and was killed by that group when he was stopped later on in the same day the appellant goes home finds his family missing and the house ransacked i mean i don't believe that it's what is the group what is the motive what is what we see is the motive for this that would make it a political or religious or some other kind of persecution while the motive in this case as was cited even in the opposing brief is that appellants father was employed by the government and angola for several years and has having been identified as a person who worked for the government when approached by opposing parties even if there was a peace treaty in place would still cause a divergent political view between the you need a organization and the government that was in place at the time in this case unfortunately was still the only there's no indication that there had been prior threats as a result of this of this working for the government i understand what you're looking for i mean there's we know i'm i'm not just i'm just trying to see how given the standard that we hear the argument that that you can infer from these circumstances  there was a political motivation is a good argument to the immigration judge and the b i yes but we're under pretty strict scrutiny here that we have to we have to be able to say again i want to read it iterate the fact that an asylum claim the basis for the objective test is less stringent than that and withholding of removal claim in that you can have less than a fifty percent chance that you will be persecuted in the future in an asylum claim or as well this is true but you still have to you're trying to say that this was persecution in the past on the basis of political was presented to the immigration court there has to be some kind of logical link between the murder and the disappearance of this family in the ransacking of the house there has to be some kind of connection because if there wasn't any connection it would just be too weird to happen all in one day that people would be kidnapped disappeared never to be heard from again and someone's father being murdered right before them i think that it's it's illogical for us not to draw a chain there between the current day and a half to get home and there's no evidence of what happened to us that the only the only conflict in the evidence that immigration judge found was whether the house was ransacked or not that he did find him to be credible but noted that one conflict you never heard from any member of his family you never heard from any member of his family he has never attempted to find any member of his family that in the record he stayed for thirty minutes he found some money and according to his story he w this case one of the reasons this case is so old is that he had temporary protected status or early part of the two hundred fifty thousand to the twentieth century twenty first century he had g p s that is protected by the attorney general his father was killed was because he had seen them and he was a witness to to the perpetrators petitioner did not establish persecution were through formal account of one of these enforcement that his one father was shot and face the people who shot him or face being shot itself and killed and also to report that missing disappearance of his family after coming home finding them not there and the house ransacked i don't think that ultimately as the court is well aware in any criminal case the victim would have to actually face the accused parties and i think that in this kind of an area in the world where you have to face your you know the accused do you want to subject yourself to possibly being killed in the future after witnessing your father being shot i mean i think the answer is not what he said he testified i don't recall i'm sorry and again just the final point that with that information there again there's a less than fifty percent chance of future persecution is all that the court had to address in terms of