meaning that no other harm has been noticed unfortunately the case law has not been completely clear as to when and under what circumstances threaten loan or persecution however in just provide a proper analysis of the threats and why or why not they amounted to persecution it is not enough for a judge merely to state that death threats received  asylum applications are not persecution in this present case the immigration judge judge's decision only that she has difficulty finding that the threats to the nation are reached the level of  essentially that that if he goes back a has this compulsion that he can't resist to run for political office so he must stay in the united states because if he went back and didn't run for political office there's no showing that he'd be under any threat at all well the fact as to whether or not he would run again for political office if he were returned to prove really goes towards whether or not he has a well founded fear as opposed to say that that's been demonstrated but the only thing with future persecution that he's demonstrated as if he goes back and runs for office he may be targeted it strikes me that that's a strange argument that we have in terms of returning to through an a well founded fear in this case the applicant as all other people have a right to participate politically that is one of the freedoms or the like abilities that is given to laws of this country and internationally in this case while it may be true and i'm not willing to concede that but it may be true that this particular petitioner might not have difficulties unless he ran for office if that is how his political opinion comes out if that is his political inclination he should be able to do that freely and i doing that he needs protection from asylum then this country should grant him asylum because he has lost inclination to run for office he's entitled to be in the united states where if he didn't have an inclination to run for office he would go back to peru well that would be somewhat analogous to the idea of having an inclination towards having a political opinion not everybody has a political opinion that he or she expresses but those who are inclined to express them are absolutely i mean that's that's what neutral so why should one be able to happen we protect the right to be able to express a political opinion but say oh but if you can go back safely to your country just don't run for office what kind of political freedom is that to express your opinion even provide a basis for her determination that past persecution was not suffered by this particular petitioner the record shows that receiving the threat in this case i would say it was an emotional and psychological harm or is that in the record it's not it's not directly stated in the record but i think that the facts of the case that that out here and lem we said that's simply not enough threats on our own situation so i i returned my question how would you distinguish a limb well again i would say that i don't think that lim says that threats alone are not sufficient in that particular case the court found that it was not compelled that's our standard to review i understand that the fact is in that case there was another determination that was made and that was that was compelled by the record was a finding of a well founded fear of future persecution but you simply another way into asylum and i i think in that respect that there might be a difference here because i do think limbs case perhaps a greater showing towards the well founded fear could be meet based on certain circumstances that occurred after the individual left the country counsel is there is there any cold so to speak over the years the organization has been active throughout peru and there has always been evidence of this organization and meeting terrorist acts harming individuals targeting carter's have to put up with before he could claim persecution well once what people are are spray painting things on his on his walls and once he gets threats that appear to be from sendero luminoso how much does mr twice have to put up could you would you distinguish lim on the basis that in a town five miles away the mayor was assassinated by shining path after threats well i would have to know what the facts of the case were in terms of what threats were made against any intervention well who was running or maybe no threats were made and it would depend on what had occurred and whether the individual had any subject is an object asking hypothetical questions just to clarify your point do you know your own ok in limb he says that there's no family was touched robbed him prisoner of forcibly recruited and i just wondered how absolute that language in a town five miles away a mayor was threatened by shining path and assassinated and then threats were given to this individual and he decided not to thank you counsel one minute for me bottle fact that these threats were not hollow threats nothing in the record even suggests that let alone supports the idea that the threats made to the petitioner in this case were hollow they were made by an organisation that had the current think that it depends on whether we're starting from the vantage point that he has shown past persecution somebody showing past persecution but but if there is an alternative if there's a sort of a good alternative for him to live safely in his native country what he automatically qualify if it was shown that he could not lift a cleanly mono does does the record at least suggest that he might have the same difficulties when and if he were to put out his political opinion or take at this moment as we stand here of a specific document that shows there but and but he lived in lima for quite some time and didn't have any problems that is correct and at the time he was not politically active having run