linked to her political can you know her work in this organization your position is because there were all these other threats and murders there that we are we're too weak we're to say that that's compelling evidence constitute persecution under u s law the question i think in my mind becomes how credible were the threats what was the prospect of actually turning into the possibility of an assault on a very expert witness actually attract one hundred ninety eight what is that about petitioner that makes her such a target in other cases you've got someone who's personal activities or who has a leadership position or my organization that's been targeted but i haven't really seen anything lot it's a lot easier for me in the long case to understand why that person would be identified as a target why that person they would actually try to go after him in the future i find it more difficult to understand with regard to your client the friendly place a long distance phone calls but that doesn't mean someone's got passably or the motivation to actually carry out the throat and again you talk about his colleagues but we don't know that the colleagues were in a comparable position why is this person is in jeopardy to what the immigration judge and the board reached in this case namely that the threats will the telephonic threats alone did not arise did not rise to level past persecution and that there was no showing of a well founded fear of future persecution i'm concerned about went stating that pointing a gun at someone has been a close encounter i mean in terms of you know anything else in life that you know just because someone points a gun at you and mr or doesn't destroy a weapon it doesn't make it or it really doesn't make it to directly relate whoever that person was to the petitioner in other words there's no indication that person was what the motivation was for them pointing the gun but the but temporal to having threats and no other explanation of it i mean it is you don't view it in a vacuum that's true but i guess i would just repeat that there's nothing in the evidence that we can public conclusion that that person was a member of the l a and targeted the petitioner for her work in this group to which she belonged or was targeting her singularly because it was james bond novel or goldfinger is quoted a would say to that is to point the court to the case law which was being discussed previously in terms of what coupled with threats rises to the level of past persecution and just you know we won a case there we're talking about a case in which the petitioner had received threats over years i believe it was five or six years period of time here it was just several months also the petition there had been chased on many occasions by arm i'm not aware that she still has ten still going swimming in colombia i'm not aware that they were members or if they were the record doesn't reflect to what extent they were members but she does have significant does reflect that he was granted asylum but it does not reflect what his claim was in terms of what his membership was if you remember this organization what level his membership was you know if any incidents other then are different than the ones to which she testified happened to him so you know would be hard to extrapolate simply from the fact that he was granted asylum that she should also be granted asylum well i would agree you can't i mean not to a if we just agree with you and found that the tester had established past persecution what's your position on whether remained is the proper hit on the issue of well founded fear of future persecution well the board just fine no well founded fear based on well all of the factors relating to the pastor said she wasn't given the presumption of past persecution correct she was not given the presumption however the boy does find that internal relocation was possible which is because of the possibility of internal relocation and there was testimony and listed it during the hearing ms franco was asked whether there are areas in colombia where that yellen does not operate and at the record it once befor and her export actually testified that the number of yelling combatants is less than the total number of combatants listed in the state department report so there there are plenty indications in the record that that it would be reasonable to expect that she could