we're all we're all getting a little old you know i don't mind the question here is attempting to conflate conflate the whistleblower doctrine it is freely acknowledged here that the corruption that was exposed private corruption and it's really corruption between the commercial shipping interests and the drug traffickers there was a police investigation what happened then is he as a law abiding citizen went to the police he not only was met with indifference it became frighteningly clear that there was complicity between the police and the drug traffickers by the simple fact that but that's not good enough going after your client on one of the protected grounds because of his own lives and because of political affiliation something like you know one of the protected categories then it doesn't matter whether or not  process may be to the international community and then they have gone after him for complaining about the police misconduct that maybe you have a this maybe i mean i got the story wrong but evidence when he was on the ship he was it was quite clear to him that you know they locked him up and all of the and then he went back to the ship the next day and the police were there investigating and he freely explain to them his concerns subsequently he made two separate think it was a combination of things that this is where i believe we have a sense of complicity asker his second visit to the police station he received threatening calls and i knew the contents of his conversation with the police this is where we are beyond simple indifferen him that the reason they weren't acting is because of his political or religious or moral beliefs or something like that there is nothing that over we clearly the threats say that the threats came from the drug traffickers i understand i'm where they came from but in the context of the threats was there any indication that it was on account of a protected only for ground  imply so he's no different then someone on any street of any village in peru sees drug transactions the police come to investigate they ask him as a proper service and he responds to them when he hears they may not follow up he goes to the police station and ask them about it and then he that person receives a couple calls and that person in your view would be entitled to asylum under our law on the very now grounds of this where he make multiple attempts to simply be a good citizen to go to the police when he learns that there is more than justice and difference that there is genuine complicity at that point i believe especially given his position he's a simple crewman i think we're imposing his burden that at that point he has to go to the sixty minutes of i mean he has to do not a matter of burden the statute requires that the persecution either past or the fear of the future he on account of a protected ground and that he's not a high government official or a prosecutor like we have any other cases i don't think we should always mechanically apply in fact prior cases here his you know indomitable opposition to the corruption here is symbolic political speech supports the board's finding that the petitioners case was not being persecuted on account of his political pain while well this court is set out pretty much in many many cases that surely personal retribution by private party is not isn't sufficient to prove a political motive or political opinion of some as well as that mere presence of some government interest in the case is insufficient to show a political opinion and that's what we have here imputed to him well there is no what i'm saying is there is no express evidence on the record of the petitioner mr ortega having a political opinion let's move to the imputed part did the  protection or was just a maritime sailor that happened to be working on a ship that then worse taken over by another company from another country and they start operating a little bit differently and he received his walking papers basically  drug trade no you are not an enemy what did he say absolutely nothing like that what happened was he never went to the police he was standing on the dock looking for work when the police were searching the ship and somebody somehow pointed him out and they found out that he was working or had work on the ship so they brought him in in full view of everybody and they questioned him on the ship and at that point he never said i saw drugs i want to turn people in for drugs or anything like that what he told them was the ship was operating differently or suspiciously needy that's it that's all he told them from there on the so called multiple attempts to go to the police were not to turn anybody yet were not to help the government the only reasons you went to the police from there on was strictly self preservation because from there on the drug alleged drug traffickers were threatening him all he wanted this protection thus he wasn't trying to help the government  and the traffickers were trying to retaliate for that that's not the case here it's not even there what we have is purely a person that happened to be a witness or perceived witness in a criminal investigation and the criminals the common criminals are the ones are coming out here so the so called extension of the law on your problem the whistleblower law that this court stablished that shows political opinion because of government and government involvement as a government person turns somebody else in the government  the law the circuit why because that would mean millions of people who just happen to be brought into an investigation not because they went to the police but because the police called on them and brought them in for questioning and then they're after and they were being somehow threatened by the criminals millions of those people would then be eligible for spinal my guess is that if the mayor and city council of every town in colombia under twenty five thousand in mass applied for asylum in accurately reported the existence of narco terrorism in that country that your client would be happy to admit whatever their numbers but i don't know you i understand that's not the escapist that's not your i know i and i don't know what the government's policy would be a but there is such a thing as narco terrorism yes sure absolutely but we're not saying these people are terrorists in fact in his asylum application or even guerrillas he makes a distinction between drug traffickers and the guerrillas the that was trying pat and he does not say he was being persecuted by the shining path so we're not we're not here where he did this is this is even the n snitch quote unquote those are all criminal terms that used for anybody to testify and again and i cases i don't know about my colleagues but i think you've covered the point pretty well  in that case this court found that a russian merchant marine and this case we also have a merchant marine who also exposed corruption of his ship's captain and this person actually did go to the authorities and did expose corruption of his cap and stealing and selling black market goods in this court found in hell that he was not persecuted on account of his political opinion when he was later threatened and beat up because they found that that was a personal vendetta personal vengeance taken by  very one quick point in terms of the allegation that he was not trying to expose anybody the record it's not altogether clear as to what happened in those conversations with the police although he went back twice even though he was under threat number two he did testify however in artfully as to a political opinion he talked he decried the corruption of his government and the fact that the government couldn't protect him so that again it's just a shame but i believe we have what i would call symbolic political speech this was a man is going to stand up and for that he suffered persecution