judge found his testimony as i said entirely credible and she noted mrs in her decision that he quote suffered tremendously emotionally upon being an obvious member of an indigenous group but she ultimately concluded that the various harms that he had suffered even when considered cumulatively didn't rise to the level of persecution we think that any reasonable person would would have to disagree with that conclusion the various related it wasn't directed directly he didn't suffer ir and that's true that's true but certainly this is the case law of the circuit doesn't preclude a finding of past persecution simply because he didn't himself suffer physical harm this court has held in numerous cases that death threats accompanied by personal confrontation or abuse of family members can constitute past persecution and that's the kind of case we have here if we did remain and what would be open and remained larvae change country conditions billeted of relocate kind of well address that in the context of the presumptions right she assumes there's no past persecution and then addresses that sort of freestanding i think that conclusion is also wrong and well i'm just trying to understand under ventura whether we're you know whether we're always crafting these right and want to make fright we don't stumble over the interview we could address a well founded fear not with risk that insofar as the presumptions might apply but you could review that aspect of her ventura and but you find past persecution under ventura you'd have to remind and the well founded fear kate part of the claim i do want to just walk through that very briefly because she says this on page one forty two of the record she says there's no question that this respond t had a reasonable fear of persecution based on what he had seen in his home country and she says the issue though is whether he currently has such a well founded fear and she says he although he had a well founded fear he no longer does and says she makes three points as to why he no longer has a well founded fear and this is on pages one forty three one forty four of her or heard of the record the first is she says well the peace courts have been signed and she doesn't talk any further about that but she just says the peace accords have been signed well if you go and look at the documents of record this is on page twenty two it says even after the march cease fire guerillas continue to employ death presumption i do ok particularly in view of the fact that eight years in the past and there's plenty of documentation that we could present at this point about you know former guerrillas acting against former soldiers a so yes i do i have i have a point that i can't i keep stumbling over in all this analysis and that is so understand the record at about age seventeen the girls came to his home and tried to take him at that point and i cited not i didn't write he later is then conscripted or forced if you will into the military and the girls come back to his home or his brother was deaf rather kidnap him looking for of alice burn his house burn the village right and those are the most direct at that point anyway confrontations if you will not directly to him but his family in the meantime letters of death threats are coming to the family's new home where they moved to another place i can't remember the place was so he serves his term under the conscription and then volunteers into them into the i think it's called ambulatory police in which he was barracks with the army buddy protected from terrorists civilian things like banks right and he's carrying a gun people are shooting he's shooting at them and he's worried about a letter now how can he be worried about a letter when he's facing the enemy who supposedly sending a letter and has a gun and he's looking at him i have a problem with that not it's not really defined in the briefs and certainly not by the i g but i have a problem if we review the entire record and i read the transcript pretty carefully right he admits that he faced the enemy and he's armed and what  expect the enemy's going to do with a gun it's any lighter than this letter i mean i'm having a problem with this letter business yeah i mean what he said was quote this is on page one eighty five while i was and within the army i was protected but the minute i would step out onto the street i was no longer protected i mean he was able to protect himself presumably with a gun but still there were death threats being made against him and i think you know i just if i can are you trying to say that when he's in the barracks he's protected that if he walk he's not protected well less protected he would have at that point only the ability of what makes them any different than any other military person the girl is are trying to kill them and there is a war going on so what's the difference the point that you're on is that the immigration judge didn't have any issue with you on account of here i mean normally that comes up by saying well he's a soldier and this is a normal event of war it's not a person you know it's not a count of other protective ground here the immigration just conceded that everything here was on account of his race that he was being targeted because of his race and in so far as the account of his concern that's not an issue here the only issue is do these death threats when combined with all these other things rise the level of persecution and the point that you're making i think is a good one i think you've got to step back and also take into account that because of the death threats this guy felt that he had to remain a member of the military for like a dozen years he didn't feel free to leave the military for that ten or twelve year period because of the threats as part of that answered g found incredible and took him right of what he said so i guess we should we have to take for granted what he says i was fearful i stayed in the military to write myself exactly and what he says i mean i think this is an important part of his past persecution claim because he hated being in the army he was repulsed by what was happening around him but he felt that he had no choice but to retain he couldn't leave and i'm page one eighty five the way he explains it he laments that even he lent his whole life to the army without any benefit at all for nothing  sacrificed ten years of his life remaining with the army repulsed by what was happening around him because he felt he had no choice given these thrill of threats and he felt that he couldn't leave and remain safe but going back to the issue of the  evillest his own personal belief concerning persecution was credible but that in fact when measured against the facts of the record there was no indication that he ever suffered any harm or there was any evidence of  military police for a couple of days to his hometown where he claimed he would be well known by the guerrillas and they would get him so in fact to that extent to the extent that he feels feared some persecution the facts were up the evidence that she concluded made i will as i think he feared and was sincere about fear and persecution but then she said there's no real evidence here and among the no real evidence is the fact that  whole calculus of facts and who there was a tension between a chinese immigrants claim that the authorities were going to get him if you continue to go to church so he never went to church and the  found that those threats were never fulfilled even though good stopped going to his church in china judge progress and dissented in that case and he dissented strongly on the basis that there was this effect on do is determination in that case and here i would say in somewhat analogous fashion there are these threats in these letters that keep coming to us as home which didn't prevent him from going home but may actually had some effect because gustaf going to to his church in china hear the threats may have kept have all of us in the military but in fact nothing ever happened to him by the  top of that layered on top of that is the fact that he went home on a regular basis nothing ever happened i understand that i've been having a problem because actually we have a pretty detailed the i j a decision a lot of times we  sides the grill and the military there's no real evidence to respond to this stuff or past persecution this case i don't understand how you come to those conclusions and how i'm supposed to approach that first he finds them credible worthy of belief no question that he has a reasonable fear of persecution that's there's no real evidence he has suffered past persecution how do we review that again my best response to that is i think she was telling up what he said and in regard to that based on his emotional reaction which she details in the in the opinion that he had he was credible in thinking he was afraid of persecution by the guerrillas when the other hand there were no facts to support it because he was protected when he was in the military she seems more to be focused and seems to some point conflate future her future persecution and sort of slides  past persecution that's how i read it and i think there's some difficulty with that and i agree but in part there is a separate part in which the i j a identifies the future persecution he does but you know you look i was reading the same burden she has to the government of the since that was the standard she was applying that's correct you're correct on the standard there and that's why i wish to defend this past persecution point because i think in fact there is an explanation that is to say the judge ever hear there is she found him credible and worthy of believe and what he said was they came looking for him at his house not finding him took his brother and burn the house you know that's pretty direct when i read i thought she was heading for the other way and i was so if you flip years after she found out it was credibility fight what if we do find that there was that she was wrong and it was past persecution should we send her back you need to remand it under the standards of inter for a determination but which is very important here and we and it's part of the record is the fact that nothing directly ever happened tablets on all the times he would go home and visit every month on furlough for a couple of days she found him credible and it's fair and he said he was fearful of time well she did find incredible on that and i think that while he was afraid same as good was afraid of going to church in china but i think she found is his fear did not match up with his actions and i fearful but took a particular restaurant because he cared about a family and was willing to risk getting killed i have nothing to do with whether there's an objective basis for i think actually loot rat in the sense that if they would reassure the decision obviously we have another ninety days to make a motion to reopen for example so it's not actually but that was a cream that if the if it's not actually move what are we supposed to do order the board to reissue its decision i mean that's an important aspect of this case because the lawyer who is representing this man he's been disbarred and the work that was done and from the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals which was poor at best if the board were to reissue its decision we would have plenty of time to make a claim based on in effect this record but if we find if we were to remain the case we've been talking about this we want him that opportunity as well we would do it in that why would we need to do on the related case