chain he has problems all stemmed because he was a member of a used group and he was exposing drug dealers that were rampant in his neighborhood and corrupt in the years i've argued and we've argued at the trial level at the board of immigration appeals level that these actions are necessarily political by virtue of what they're doing if i could analogize i believe back when reagan was running for office nancy reagan had a just say no campaign and i can't see to him i would argue that persecutors are hardly likely to provide the person being persecuted with a letter explaining in detail the exact reasons given the focus is just slightly different and the persecution was by a drug dealer yes your honor i i do acknowledge that it was the henchmen of a drug dealer that did constitute the persecution however these henchmen and the drug dealers there the record is replete with references to these individuals having ties to the government well there is there is an indication that he was tight with some police who went to parties is now correct there's also indications in the records that the police were seen burning the bodies of his friends after they had complained to the police with then the the crux of this thing is why so the immigration judge compelled to find that he was persecuted by the police on account of his drug honor i would i would argue that the respondent was found to be credible he submitted evidence that's not refuted that evidence points to a link between the government and these drug dealers that committed this harm he had reported this harm that these drug dealers were committing directly to the government and the government shooed him away within a two week period two of the expose two of his friends that went to complain to the police were found brutally murdered and half their bodies burned so they can be identified there is evidence in the records that is not refuted and credible and by the circuit flaunting true that the police were somehow implicated in the burning of these bodies this is a difficult case this man fears death and motives are very hard to pinpoint down the court finding is that there's reasonable evidence to support this i believe the immigration judge turned a blind eye to this evidence acknowledge that it existed and then basically went with his spin on it are what do you rely on  but i don't think the case law supports that proposition i do believe that substantial evidence if the court would like to entertain the possibility of a denotable i think we wouldn't be here for argument right now as continuing with that line a much differently situated petitioner he was politically active his family was politically active he helped people with their campaigns various sites in the record if i can give them to you that that he was basically having rallies and exposing this man's drug dealing activities to the public in efforts to quell the drug dealing that was going on in the community i think while relevant under some of the legal principles i think malina morality is is pretty much in opposite factually that the petitioner here he's afraid for his life he's going to die the people that did this are in cahoots with the government the government's been willing to do it there's even record there is even evidence in the record that the individual who perpetrated this harm or at least directed it was name was grow that he was the right hand of the other prime minister of sri lanka i think once you get to that level of association with the government and given the fact that he was politically vocal against these drug dealers as part of a youth group a social community group to foster certain beliefs i can't see it being anything other than political opinion and i think police he said you have all done too many things i don't believe any reasonable inference was drawn from that statement it's a little it's difficult at this point in time considering he's credible he's not required to produce proper rating evidence and given the fact that on account of a protected ground this court held in saying that the i and you can't establish persecution on account of simply by inference therefore simply because this drug dealer may have been in cahoots with a few local police officers it does not establish that he imputed a political opinion to the petitioner and sought to harm him on account of that political opinion the petitioner has to prove something more than violence plus the disparity of  the incumbent government i think in that instance your honor yes there probably could come up point but these facts don't present that issue i think that would be a situation where you had systemic government corruption where you could show that the entire local community and even on up the line would not protect this person i think it's irrelevant that when the petitioner left longer and came to the united states for nearly three years you never sought asylum and when asked by the trial attorney for the immigration judge why he stated my party was in power would you really significantly limit any of his arguments that the entire government was going to persecute him or that in some waiting room puting a political opinion to him to harm him if you wasn't in fear whistleblower and i don't think that the government's position is that that record in that line of cases can't be supported by the petitioners facts as presented before the immigration judge and i was there was the following issue even presented to the immigration judge the salient question with a whistle blowing case is w hether or not you're directing something towards a government institution or is it somebody whose acts are aberrational the person that sought to harm the petitioner was a drug dealer he sought to harm the drugs the drug dealer sought to harm him specifically because he opposed the drug dealing in the community it doesn't give rise to too significant government corruption or anything systemic would support that line of cases therefore substantial evidence to support the immigration judge's finding police station and ratted him out the girl was to be remain free to commit some criminal behavior and petitioners opposition to that criminal behavior lead to a personal vendetta and while it's unfortunate that those events take place it hasn't been group was involved with the government he did come to the united states for two and a half years prior to that his friends would have been killed but the serious problems that he referenced suffered happened upon his return to sri lanka at a point in time when the un peu party was power who is the party that supported protected quero they killed his uncle they murdered him me killed to have his volunteers that was prior to his departure then he was beat up and he had to go into hiding i i don't i'm i'm not a just a mental lost her i don't see how this cannot be a political opinion there is plenty of evidence the immigration judge even in his decision this is cited in my brief i just found it was russia trial and while i may not have used the words whistle blowing at trial i do believe that argument was raised it was raised in my closing it was the bulk of the evidence was he reported these activities as part of duties of being a youth organization youth organization leader and to foster their civic responsibility i see that as being nothing other than political opinion it's very hard it's yes i will agree with the government that part of this motive was completely retaliatory but i don't think all of it was in the case on the circuit makes clear that in a mixed mode of analysis only part of it has to be and that can be drawn from reasonable inferences the record compels the conclusion that there are reasonable inferences supporting correct your honor ok i don't know if the court has any further questions i don't think so thank you very much for your argument