personal revenge and the potential record here not only doesn't sustain it at that lax back slowly conclusion really lacked any reasonable substantial probative evidence at all when you look at that's correct your honor and that of the political opinion when he expressed kids belief that they think christianity and his code of morality that he was unwilling to engage in it corruption that  was rooted in morality in his religion doesn't mean that it therefore not political that the two are not mutually exclusive in other words the same sort of sort of interrupt but you you said before the only conclusion there could be reached from this record is that he was expressing a political opinion isn't it fair say that it's a possible conclusion that could be reached from this record no i think it's the only conclusion because well when he  aiming to address the mixed mode it but the reason i have argued that the only weapon evidence sustained his persecution on account of his expressed belief system which was rejected by the colonel is because a conclusion of well this is a personal vendetta that doesn't have any rack record evidence all we know is that mr chen that said i'm not willing to engage in corruption it's against my my code a bad thing i'm not willing to participate in the political system evidence could only show the opposite that i mean it was the foley personal revenge motive is where the error lives secondary here though it is with respect to the claim on the can't claim to be a simply declared that as held that let's have the proof that pawed severe mental anguish can constitute torture within the convention against torture to the level of torture no i'm not saying that every time someone utters you know i will kill you that therefore torture approached the matter of law not at all what i'm thinking of the picture here whether in fact severe and cause severe mental anguish for mr kendall you see it in its profound when you see it in the record where he's under such mental anguish and psychological strain from the strat and the gun being brandished and a threat to his family that he's been active tormentor i don't know what to do what should i do and i think that's why when you don't have a family how do you know when entering the family house looking for him in the wiping cover and then he flees america prebble testimony that i am fearful of being murdered  assume that all happen and held is a matter of fact in this case that that didn't arise to the level of torture are you telling us that no reasonable fact finder could find different yes you honor for this reason to be what could be ice that is we don't think he was tortured because he didn't report it nothing happened the family when he left and those aren't the poll for by which we can judge whether or not torture has occurred and so d his claim and the dime the country condition reports none of which were addressed within the convention against torture and now office and so it's on that basis that we can tend to be a aerate as a matter of law on that kathleen i see a lot of schemes however the evidence in this case does not provide any credible or direct circumstantial evidence of his particular next is in this claim i'd like to point the court to the colonel showed no concern about whether he had an opinion at all because he had no fear of retribution or engaging in a song in the st place nd the record also shows that when the petitioner was asked what he was going to put in his complaint he testified specifically that he didn't want to ask for payment for the services rendered in the complaint and that was it there was no allegation that he wanted to actually expose anything he just wanted to get his money back he talked about the six thousand dollars he put up wasn't going to pay he told the crowd he wasn't going to pay for personal reasons his personal reasons were because of his religious faith he was a catholic and he also said he was fearful of being arrested at that time he didn't say anything about the mixed motive for his persecution because the petitioner told him what his motives the why the petitioner said for religious reasons my my faith and my belief and i fear going to jail i don't want to be caught stealing  he explains that that is his reason he doesn't say i think what you're doing is wrong i think that the government is wrong for doing this he doesn't express any kind of political opinions he doesn't associate with people who have political opinion and also in the record if you look at his asylum application he actually thinks that the colonel threaten to him to make a profit you know and say that you know anything about this in the grand scheme i think that the scheme is sort of a characterization of what took place but i don't think that that's how the petitioner perceived what had been happening at the time i mean his whole argument is that cameron is so corrupt that it's sort of like understood that people there's a bribery and there's extortion and that's just how the cameroonian government operates and without any other evidence to show that he opposes that particular regime other than his religious reasons and fear of arrest i don't think he made the leap to show that there was a he doesn't care about the reason he just simply said the government is on my side i got to do what i want to do i don't have to be concerned about how you feel about what i'm doing because i can do this with with im during his testimony he said that the colonel found out later but he wasn't sure how he found out the fact that he has these two these two alternative theories for how the colonel actually found out about his alleged complaint calls into question the fact that was there actually a complaint at all and if you look at the best relation the declaration also contrary to what argued in opposing counsel the brief actually says that the declaration said his friends advised him ratable i'm not asking to make a credibility determination and what i'm saying is that we don't know when or the timeline for when the colonel found out about the proposed complaint because he's given two credible evidence from today in the in the record that says that the colonel didn't care about his opinion and if he's supposed to make out a case for thought in the withholding of removal he's got to establish the nexus not just simply that he has a political opinion he's got also demonstrate that the colonel threatened him on that opinion and because we don't know when we can't truly establish a timeline as to when the colonel found out because it's either when he said he found out from others he's credible but which story do you believe did he tell him when he initially refused to do the voice or did he tell him when we find out later from other people and because he has claimed both we don't know which one of those circumstances is true they can't both be true even though he's credible and that's the reason why i would argue that he has not made not made a burden of proof in this particular case the timing has been questioned by his own testimony he's given two different contradictory pieces of evidence or testimony to the extent when the colonel found out about it so we can say that the th board presumed that the petitioner had not been tortured because a good petitioner actually conceded as much in his brief before the before the board the crux of his argument for the board was that relevant facts in the case when you decide on torture is not just passed torture which you also consider the ability to relocate you consider the growth flagrant abuses in the country and all relevant evidence in this particular case the agency concluded that the fact that his family members remained in cameroon on harm even though they had been threatened as well they found it relevant to his likelihood of future harm the fact that there's no evidence in the record to show that the colonel has continued interest in him they found that relevant to the fact that  case board found out that the human rights abuses that were related in the case were incidences involving both iran in the north of the region and usually subjected people people who were subjected to torture or criminal suspects or those who were linked experts about this particular case the attorneys spoke to the expert about the case and they also there and the record shows that the expert incorrectly stated that petition was being persecuted by military officers who wanted to take over his business but the experts believe that his claim is based on military personnel who were trying to take over the business already places in doubt says that there's a likelihood of him being tortured that wasn't the circumstances of his particular case he refused to give the case of an invoice there was no attempt to take over his business and so you have to question how relevant or how probative is the evidence expert testimony in this particular case given that the basis for his testimony is inaccurate that  don't think the court can say that they are as a matter of law not changeable being seen as political beliefs especially when they're occurring within a country that undisputed as one of the most corrupt countries on the planet and that's from the country conditional parts and it's also from the expert lower substantive benchmark than the one central reason standard and so i think within withholding certainly a reason was his expressed belief system that was perceived in imputed as being an antigovernment belief simply just for bona fide criminal and other people like that it's widespread and into him felt who credible kept money well that one feared being tortured if you was returned the export confirmed that in his expert opinion that was whitely and so when when the when the lower court simply said we're giving it limited weight whatever exactly that means really when you read the opinion what happened is the lower court just gave it no weight because it doesn't factor in anywhere when it