d government in this case as well as the board immigration appeals implied that his participation rises to the level of past persecution based on political opinion efficient or in his testimony before the immigration judge steadfastly and in phatic lee denied that he testified clearly and consistently that the sole reason and sole purpose of a rounding up and interrogating bang incidental that they were what they were being detained for it was folly for the purpose of extracting from them information regarding their knowledge of the pakistani army furthermore the mistreatment they suffered although it's petitioner was ordered not to beat them for more than five minutes and only be those who do not cooperate by giving it the information they sought and once that information was sought they were subsequently released those who did give that information those who were not would be in for a limited amount of time and only on one and only for one on one occasion and very few required any any type of medical treatment pursuant to these factors the position was that the board erred political opinion or the expression of a religious view the fact that it's simply the fact that they were being persecuted had nothing to do with their membership in a particular social group or any of the other numerous grounds and  remember that what happens is once the there is evidence that if a ticket petitioner has engaged in persecution the burden shifts to the the difficulty i have with which argument is often we hear the flip side and when when you are one of your colleagues comes and argues and they say well look this there is no proof of i'm on account of these these people were just being rounded up for that they're just rounding up these people and questioning well because you're when they talk about right rounding up a group of bangladeshis or people are rounding up a group of people who are supporting the pakistani army a well i mean you could still see you could still make the argument i think that in addition to getting them for that reason those people were members of a particular nationality yes when you consider that you're talking about what more than one person you're talking about beating each person for a period of five minutes with a three foot long bamboo stick i would suggest  i think when you capture a group of people and you have somebody going around with a three foot long bamboo stick beating people on the back and legs each one of them for five minutes at a time that's pretty severe persecution i would i would  people the motive was because they were supporting the pakistani army there was a clear motive and it was a politically motivated act by the other group to do these bad things to his people so he went back and yes he did reprisal but it's politics it's related i guess if any of these other people were applying for asylum you have to say they've got a clear case past persecution well given doing that in support of the pakistani army then he gives the order to take these prisoners of war and you know if part of it was retaliation the other part the sternly to do because those people had supported the retaliation was certainly arguably a part of that but it was also because he was taking a political opinion against those people who took a political pending against him and if it's in tory action in the context of the second incident it's not it's not the kind that would rise to the level of any numeric grounds and only and i would only like to add in conclusion that here we can clearly see a case where the indian