on account of one of the so called protected grounds on account of political opinion or membership in a particular social group or whatever your theory or  that i raise that because as i understood it the immigration judge and the b i have basically said that it wasn't shown that the  the damage to his relatives or to him was our like out of a protected protected ground and then we review for substantial whether their conclusion is supported by substantial evidence so  the problem i'm having with the case and i want you to focus on that issue is that it seems to be our law would say that unless the record compels the conclusion that he was persecuted active meaning that there were evidence submitted that were not challen smiter government membership of his family tree to guatemalan r v so the whole there was another issue that was of concern to me that i hope at some point he'll address in your argument and that's the convention against torture of course truly father that i didn't see any place in the  willing to control the absence of that person in other words the government authorized the person to act that way and also that the the that the relief under the convention against torture is because the guerrillas are now part of the present government and at that time the government is not willing york's the result then and the words you can't can a person get the convention against torture relief if the government is unable to control somebody else they have to be just the governments unwilling to do it government but yet gorillas are still active in the country and the governments unable to control them can there be relief under cannot or is the only relief if the government is acting the state of the evidence and whether some of these very disturbing acts you know acts the burning in the other family members problems or torture whether those are on account of the political opinion or membership in a particular social group or and what the government's view is on that second thing i'm concerned about and we could address them for a time in your argument the desire the decision it of the petitioner's persecution claim with respect to that incident there is no evidence that it was done for any other reason than to intimidate to seek to appropriate or  the application about the extremists persecuting him on account of any reason it seems that they came and did terrible things to him and to the plantation and their storehouse that was located there  that that coffee plantation was run by the government in fact it appears that that plantation had strategic importance to both sides both the guerrillas and the government and he testified that that there were recruit meetings and it's not clear who held those meetings it may have been both but in the record of page seventy one it's clear that he says that both the army and the guerrillas use that plantation there's a lot of evidence that makes this look like we should credit the dishes argument that his family was kind of on the outs with the gorillas well i'm i'm just asking how the government you know when we have a legal precedent says not only do they have to address it but they have to address it in some way that shows that they're taking into account the different standards for so we've got that law there and then we have an opinion of the agency where they just don't even mention the words when the work when the issue was raised it seems to me the government ought to be which case do you want to take next to the