asked by the government why she amid the fact in her desperation during her interview in during direct examination petitioner explained that she was simply never asked how she got the passport in fact on direct exam ask you to turn to the testimony of the asylum interviewing officer who testified that during the interview when asked if he had participated in political activity she said that she has not whether she had problems with the government or the police in the military as you said that she had not when asked why she left the country it was to come visit and that because she'd been given and maybe given four months of leave by the government and it was only upon why didn't you go back while she like question about that statement to the military and to denounce relationship to her brother and connections to her brother and she refused to denounce them and what happened to her after that she kept her job she was given a four month leave passport she explained she paid a big bride for the passport and again at the airport she had never mentioned she had a fake such measures to get her passport generated leaving the but your honor application was during your interview going to be true that she was going to be persecuted if he executed burma and she had to go to extraordinary efforts to me berman by for example obtaining and by private passport country surreptitiously by paying a bribe or something like that if true if you believe that information which said that maybe she was persecuted or had to give newsstand never rains that idea that she had to pay a bribe to anyone not madi i guess which is it if you lie about the way you got here and how you use phony certificates or phony take it or anything like that that's not central to the asylum here i don't know it's only as you said it's part of down through the report she received that the military came to her house military intelligence looking for her when the older brother or one brother was given a life sentence the other brothers held as far as we well he was being held for interrogation but there's no evidence that he's gotten out and this report comes from the mother right now the letter from the mother is excluded for what seemed to me to be clearly improper reasons the military intelligence would like to find out where was going to important government employee who disappeared after taking her leave so what we're left with is the immigration judges conclusion that the military intelligence came to her house because the military was concerned that this critical government employee had stayed away her explanation is that the military intelligence fear given the findings that they did come to her house but his conclusion that they were looking for her for a different reason if you saw him given all of the that they were looking for a missing government employee because if they were going to look for her to interrogate her or to ask her questions about her brother's whereabouts the brother has since been found there's no more reason that she has any reason to fear even though the brother was found they took  we don't know but the titian are in the stands not present evidence of why her brother was picked up as far as her not returning after her four months i'm going to call it a sabbatical where she was wrong she was here in the united states have a different government police military intelligence there are not that similar and i would imagine burma and it would be fair that those people would go and want to find out where any government currently was specially if she basically in this case meant a lot and did not return to her job after evanston that she was going to be coming back and continuing in her position and how it has been now it's been ten years does that fact and so the family deny her petition and she would have gone back to burma she's been here for ten years does she have a well founded fear of persecution suffered because she's been in the united states for ten years and the government are no firm is not like very appreciative of that there's information in the record that people who have left burma from a foreign country have gone to the front country and returned they are they might say priest detention but someone like  it was not a high level political dissident didn't make any outward statements opposing the government might be just a brief detention and she would be released but there's no other evidence that any other  that it's not proper for the immigration church to engage into an inquiry as to why or the government would or would not do something when that increase is not supported by the record in this case he says any government would have or in this case it's not  unreasonable for the government to be looking towards this being government employees i don't use a case law supports petitioner being allowed to speculate because the problem is apparently nobody has factual information with regard to what the purpose of those visits was you responded to testify she offered her theory but again her theory you can call it inference or even call it speculation but either way it's drawing from facts and trying to attach to the fact of a visit what the reason for the visit was her testimony was based upon what her mother had written to her and a lot of her testimony wasn't just mere theory or speculation or she actually was basing it upon a fact in her life or mother had spoke to her or written her a letter indicating that the authorities asked about her specific reasons because we're looking for her brother and that they had arrested her one of her other brothers in this case the brother that was arrested that was not a member of the assassination squad was not politically active that's also an uncontroverted fact he she is the respondent stated on the record that it was not because he was not political there for whatever reason with the government have to arrest him but for his connection to his older only be subject to a brief detention and the record had stansfield evidence and compelling evidence to support the fact that no matter how brief a detention by the burmese government human rights violations do often happen during these arrests and there is no fair judicial process for detainees or people who are arrested for it any political or alleged political activities therefore there is substantial evidence in the record to support the fact that it was done it has a well founded fear of