of his wife started and this case is about his wife today and of course the main issues before the court are did miss elia suffer harm and if you did suffer harm that it rise to the level of persecution and was a persecution on account of one of the protected brown grounds and your silence to action and finally is there a well founded fear of your persecution it is our position that ms saw it indeed suffered harm the day she came into her home to find her nanny handcuffed to a pipe in the bathroom severely beaten and her two year old toddler on a bed and attended then having learned from the nanny that the  were i guess sent by either the drug lord person or have some connection to him that's pretty much a circumstantial evidence question i mean the did this sailing say anything to the effect that you know we know military they had masks they had never been threatened or harmed before he had arrested mr bill but dia so it's fairly there's a good presumption that these people were related to bo essentially their cousin was their bodyguard who was also in the navy was at the home when the phone call came in saying tell the dog the hunt is begun you know if you talk we know where your families we know where your daughter is so that was a pretty direct threat now granted that is a lie i was at work at the time the bodyguard called this alive and said stay there we're going to come get you there's been a threat a phone call don't move so how do you think she would react if this is the month after this home invasion and then finally the next incident a month later the nanny having quit just not much fun getting beaten up they had a new housekeeper who was going to get some food at the grocery store and was accosted by two men saying where is the tenant of don't you know where he is he came back and reported that to the ten or done as in his cousin both of whom are armed their military officers out to look to see if there's anybody around but i want to get back to the wife again because it is a lie if if by the third incident she quit her job she couldn't sleep she worried about the whereabouts of her children of all point to it on the record at three forty four and three forty eight alleged he killed two families eleven people including three miners he threatened revenge against police people who would arrest him he was part of the electric drug cartel on the major drug us and it still is so having testified against his underlings he is what was threatened the family was threatened so what do you think they adjudicate this petition for review pretending that nobody is still alive because that was the last state of the record before the b s a well yes well we don't know for sure where the body is alive or not there are rumors of this might have all been a set d so if we if we thought that based on the record that existed back then i don't even remember what year this was it's probably a few years ago now he's out and well ok two years three years ago if we agreed with you that the record was such that t erred in not finding that your client had a reasonable fear of future persecution we would just send it back and i assume the government at that point would do whatever it's going to do in terms of supplementing the record and you would make whatever arguments you want to wri regarding this death that may or may not have happened then that can be taken up at that point though right you can neither party with any prejudice unless i'm missing something that i want to hear from both of you about that but that's my understanding the state of the of affairs you're saying that yes if we we family and what would be the risks of this family returning to honduras so yes that that would be what we would do if i think you know that was exactly what i was going to say that if it goes back down presumably at that point the record threats do not constitute past persecution let me ask you this they came to her house you're not disputing the facts that are in the record that they came to her house they beat up the nanny threatened to kidnap point police thought about kidnapping child right does it have to be the exact person they made a mistake if they made a mistake or just did it as a warning wouldn't that be enough to put her in  think that there was no genuine fear in the fact that she lived in the country for two and a half years thereafter and harm upon a family member can constitute persecution that's was   health care based on being a chinese christian in a muslim portion of the philippines in this case there was actually no harm to the child to counsel i just want to get this straight sometimes it sounds like and then i want to ask whether or not you might be arguing that it's that even if severe enough it's not there isn't a nexus to that to show that this wasn't attributable some nongovernmental force because you seem to  view a little bit of all three of those things here so the first question is very about that there were three in there but the first question the question just really goes to the severity of the harm is that really the government's position this isn't bad enough to have a home invasion with a gun but the head  e arrived at that conclusion that there was a home invasion but none of the petitioners themselves were actually harmed there is comments that the the the i think the unstated assumption of her question it is my understanding as well which is that these folks were deemed credible so we have to accept these facts is true is that right that's correct ok so i'm not i'm not doubting the credibility i'm saying that the record is not very detailed in the severity of what happened at that instant incident to somebody who is not a person in the family isn't your strongest point that there was that two and a half year gap why i think that that's correct your honor that can is i agree that there was founded fear to know well founded fear when there's two and a half year gap and there's a lot of cases that that support that argument with respect to the incident that happened at the house is that it was that a reasonable jew to cater the immigration judge in the first instance could who was actually listening to these accounts it was reasonable that they came to that conclusion that didn't constitute persecution and that based on substantial evidence standard i think that the court should affirm that solution if this court were listening to that testimony in the first instance i recognize the court might come to a different conclusion but that was a reasonable determination i think that when we look at the all the the incidents in this thousand and nothing else happened during that time to you know i want to make sure i have the chronology right i thought that the this last incident occurred shortly after the husband testified against the underlings is that right that's correct and it was contemplated that he would then be forced to test not force but he would then be need to testify against the main guy but they'd main guy escaped kill some people in the prison and got away and so you know there was no there's no pending trial at which the husband would need to testify and so that might have explained why nothing was going on but then he got recaptured some time later and so then all of a sudden the trial you know was or was something that was learning and that's the point at which they know if there was going to be harm to petition or i think it's reasonable to say that it still could happen in zero five and zero sex and so that that gap is to get counsel can you remind me what is the record about the number of times these folks moved home after the first home invasion occurred and can i just make one other comment based on what opposing counsel said he stated that one of the issues was whether or not this was on account of a protected ground that was an issue that was assumed by the board and that issue well i assume that that was a new factor that you are you or your client attorney general would want the record to be supplemented with it doesn't help out that the person that they mainly feared is dead how does that help i think that this kid i think that  i guess we could we could send it back for an examination upon that your honor i guess what i'm saying is that it's the government's position that there's based on the record as it is there's no well founded fear there's no past persecution  machinery the ashcroft these very was the mother saw her child having been bloodied in a fight on the street she saw afghan business down the street set on fire she read use paper articles about what was happening to afghans in this town in germany and that was enough for the court to establish that she herself suffered harm even though it was not her personal experience and obviously that's that that's the position assume along also the two of two and a half year gap is is clearly an issue but let's remember that the first part of that period they did move i think at least twice they moved their daughter to change the daughter's school three times that's on the record that's on the record at page four sixty six do you agree with government counsel's assertion that your client's the basis for her fear was not just but rather the cartel as a whole absolutely yes and then what why isn't government council right then that merely because he had escaped and was sort of at large for a period the threat from the car tabi asli they have lost all this cocaine was still in place why why doesn't that two year or two year plus cap take on added significance well i'm ok i think the the because of the the death threat phone call was when he was testifying against the under things return or don't as her husband it was obviously the you know sort of the driving force in this family and he was incredibly afraid that if he had to testify against well but the bad things would happen she was afraid of the drug cartel the moment he arrested boba dia she was not party to all the details of why things would be so dangerous but she was afraid the moment he arrested her in fact at first he didn't even tell her that he'd arrested her because colombia we don't know whether he took his henchmen with him the ones who would who went with him to open it i can't speculate on why they were not attacked during that time but i also know that you know according to the lim case that there can be a dormant period that doesn't  e past persecution and this dormant period did indeed exist but as soon as he came back as soon as they saw the newspapers about extradition they went into action there must that was why the we've got to get out of here because