just be another bullet well i don't think the immigration judge said that he hadn't been shot and he says specifically the evidence is credible enough to support the proposition that he'd been shot but  evidence and i accepted it you were shot but what was he shot for protected grounds i think the grounds of the immigration judge decision was not that he doubted whether the  applicant had been shot but rather whether he was able to establish a connection between that attack and the political grounds for seeking asylum or arson in that case the case  consistory court i mean they have an immigration judge didn't reach the question of whether the government could or could not control the people who shot him because it found that he was there was no evidence to support the conclusion that he was shot because of political persecution so the question of if he was shot for political reasons whether the government is either are liable or whether it would fail to control was not decided by the immigration judge so under whatever that case other removed island where he was running for office and this was and i guess was it in manila or in the in the main island but it was not the island where he lived where he was campaigning and that the people who shot him spoke in that dialect so that you there is no evidence that they were from a from the island where he was campaigning secondly there is evidence of afterwards people came to his home and for no apparent reason of someone where the testimony is if there was no other enemies that enough to justify the finding that the reason for this otherwise had explained shooting the messages don't come back and run for office and he was shot by people from that island when he wasn't somewhere else at near there are other possibilities they could have been robbers  you know i've read the documents or in any of the reports documents either the newspaper articles the police reports the medical reports any of the documents you have that you have given me that you haven't ever given me is there any indication from anyone that mr m language from that remote island and ask you would say came and people identified man came to his house a number of times and they said you know he better not come back and run for office or is going to be in danger lando that there was past political politically predicated persecution and then go on to make this alternative finding of changes because like you are because there's no question that shooting past is past persecution but but again he  about this case and i've had trouble with that and i'm gonna have to get the idea now which is dangerous and i'll think more carefully but this is your chance to speak to it what's odd about this case is that the political motivation isn't there doesn't appear to be in any fashion ideological let's accept the theory that mr ramirez was behind the shooting mr ramirez his motivation does not appear to be that that petitioner was his political enemy in terms of supporting a different philosophy his motivation was this guy's trying to take her marriage a seat in congress and a potential political opponent so what we really have here is does a terroristic threatening to try to scare somebody out of taking america's job this year didn't run against ramirez petitioner fled the country ok fourteen years are past their perilous position is not even sure where ramirez is today in those circumstances is there any reason to think the petitioner has any problem going back to the philippines today  respond facing and next case to be argued