home of a former anti narcotics official in guatemala and she witnessed the murder of her employer and two bystanders at the hands of a violent narcotics gang and that several weeks later the gunman abducted her brutally beaten and raped her and threatened her with death because she had witnessed their crime and because they believed she would cooperate with law enforcement against them it is on this basis that she seeks asylum withholding of removal and relief under the convention against torture there is no dispute in this case that ms money is a strategy suffered harm rising to the established that the gunman did this that this was a narcotic skank that had committed the crime when she when they abducted her and committed the brutalization on her specifically they told her they threatened her that no one should cooperate that she should cooperate and if they saw her again they would kill her so in that situation there were there was no personal vendetta against me against him is just a straw to base on her filiation control which is the core piece of this claim here the country conditions established that narcotics gangs run rampant and corruption is deeply seated in the law enforcement is underfunded and incapable that she retreated to her own home for over a month and no one came to question her even though she was known to work for the family and known to have been on the scene so it was reasonable to assume that there was no thorough investigation going on and as soon as she emerged from her house to go back to work for a day to make some money to support her daughter that's when she was abducted and the threats that had previously been made to the widow of mark of any c e o were were made good upon help government can't control for persecution on account of belonging to a particular social group or race or political opinion and all those categories well you are in the context of guatemala where you know the reports are that it's becoming another colombia and that the narcotics gangs are running rampant and that they have every interest in preventing the legitimate government of legitimate law enforcement from doing their jobs it's actually quite analogous to a guerrilla group that is attempting to gain control of parts of the country or cities and towns so that they can conduct their own activities for their own benefit if we said  political thing is what the political opinion is that the narcotics going to guatemala should not be allowed to to commit such crimes with impunity which which clearly would be their view is that they should be able to maybe i should say this rebuttal i see that i have just two minutes left government either before or after the government had no idea that she witnessed this crime they had no idea that she was brutally raped and afterward she's never there's no acquiescence by the government in fact in this case the government went i guess i don't understand the position that the government here is unable or unwilling to protect petitioner or others when the government not only investigated  very short time within forty days of the murders the government had everyone involved with the murders in custody and i think the record also shows listen you know the strada said herself that by the time either by the time she got here or shortly after her arrival there were convictions in place and these people are now serving time so far can't claim you have to so that the government has somehow acquiesced in in the torture that you did suffer or you may suffer and on this record there's no such evidence at all let alone compelling evidence  and answer your question yes i understand your position thank you going for first second with regard to since we've already address grounds past persecution based on imputed political opinion and a few future persecution based on her membership in the group as far as her imputed political opinion when she was abducted and brutalized her doctors never one attributed and political opinion to her whatsoever there's no evidence in the record that they attributed an opinion to her that  that no one else in the group no one else that witnessed the crime and those people must have participated in the investigation and so on some level they must of participated in the prosecution of these individuals on some and no one else was harmed she may have been a scapegoat they said they wanted to send a message to the family not to cooperate but all of that has to do with criminal activity doesn't have to do with her political opinion or even if she held such an opinion there's no evidence that her attackers knew and with regard to the point that counsel was making with regard to her employer being a narcotic so officer he was a retired narcotics officer there's no evidence in the record that says she worked for him during the time while he was narcotics officer further she evidently knew the person behind the murder because it because he her employer and the person who evidently set up the murders were friends so there's no if the record is nearly contain objective evidence that this was related to drugs that all know what there's no objective evidence that the article is put in the record by petitioner make no mention of this of the fact that drugs were illegal and so you know they put forth this idea that he was a very well known former narcotics officer it seems to me that in the objective news articles there would be some mention of that fact and there is no mention of that fact at  has died that two people were also murdered at the same time that her employer was murdered however that there's no evidence that they were murdered because they were witnesses objectively they were probably in the line of there were only threats in the time between the actual her abduction and the time she left to come to the united states there is about a six to seven month intervening time period has put forth no evidence that during that time period anyone including herself was harmed or threat  second it again the government stated that no one else was harmed but reference specifically the fact that two bystanders were killed at the scene there is evidence in the record that they were killed as witnesses to the crime the specific account of this w gunman in the taxi went back and forth waiting for mark of a nice specifically to come out of the house everyone else was on the lawn before him it was when he came out that they emerged they shot him then they shot into the crowd specifically and killed those other people also with regard to whether there's objective evidence in the record articles which were pretty close to the time of the events in question don't reference our comics but that's understandable the reason this was in the news was not because it was in our comics crime that's commonplace it's because two rock musicians were killed at the scene that's what made this a notorious and newsworthy crime in guatemala