gonzales and there are essentially four points that i want to argue in this case but i will go first to the distinction between the petitioners ca is much narrower in the petitioner's case it does not comprise a major segment of the population as the merchant class getting shallower it's a gnat the journalists are a narrow social group that's precisely the difficulties seems to me that you know whether it's three children or journalists or whatever you keep slicing it gets it cannot in his particular situation what he's done cannot be changed nor should he be required to change his membership in that wouldn't want to be true of every professional and stick lawyers or judges in some of these countries in latin america where you have dubious situations between the be i don't necessarily see the judiciary in a latin american country as not being part of a social class and they could very well be now when i mean under this definition literally any basically any profession then becomes a social without cause they tend to be because of something particular thing you wrote so so i guess what i'm saying is it's much more comfortable to me to look at this case as turning i participation in the church program dealing with youth who have been in the satanic cults and he has worked with three hundred or so youth so various as the late church worker he has been subjected to the threats and harassment and persecution well then one question i have about that is the temporal aspect because he's he's in the church and it's really when the documentaries produced does he get any threat which is one thousand nine hundred eighty eight so he's been being in the church and he's not being attacked simply because he's doing this church work well  at it from this point of view the priests were worth threatened much earlier when he makes the documentary film i think that combines with his church work to bring him into a very high profile he's now known as a way church worker who's been clear opposition to the satanic cults yeah i'm just having some trouble here is that in an abstract sense it seems that people who are what we would consider to be first amendment rights and i think you that there ought to be some way that they would get asylum just as an abstraction but the way the law is written you have to fit within one of these boxes and so anytime somebody exposes something that somebody else is doing or doesn't like how do you draw the line between basically being an investigative journalist and exposing what one might consider unfortunate and bad things and then just say well because the subject of that is either religion or politics here though it's political or religious imputing well if we look at the political aspect of this case and specifically at pages two sixty seventy three zero nine and the record there is documentation of the extent to which he worked with government prosecutors and government agents i think that establishes a political motive it's not simply that he made a film like hacking the satanic cults he had extensive contact with colombian government officials which established a political viewpoint at least in the eyes of the persecutor so i think it's clear that there's an i what i mean that he had interviewed government officials and d a s agents which is i understand is the equivalent of the colombian f and prosecutors about the problem of these satanic cults but that's a far cry from saying and it was because of my political involvement my interviewing of politicians i became an airplane with them and therefore i'm much less clear on whether the i j a opinion adequately deals with the religion aspect of this case the i j a opinion says basically that the respondent first what do you agree that  class under the statute considering worked at least the record shows what he claims the satanic cults would give i do nothing so any more than a journalist in this country who not and i'm drawing a parallel to who i forget what they are called but they're the extreme mormonism one that the mormon church has is this all the fundamentalists who it's because of this specific stance the very fact for example that he interviews this one person and by his testimony this person was killed and his body was ca sensually well i think the answer is no there was he didn't say don't tell young people don't do this because you're doing something illegal he's saying don't do this because you would because o mainline mormon in this country saying to those who might be tempted to join these obscure mormon sex he might say it's a good no don't do this because when the people of that religion react against me then i will react against me because i have attacked them and i think that that is not persecution because of my religious beliefs especially because i am attacking their religious beliefs just reminds me of like rivers passing on intellectual property it's like that's kind of what the argument is though is that it's not and it goes back to the course designing on that argument he failed to raise it in his brief to the boards in his brief to the board he argued that he fits all the different categories for asylum but he made no argument that that's the talk shows that he claims was  and i don't believe that he could have briefed that issue at the time i believe that we need to be remanded and i believe it has to be remanded the current standard is different than the standard the i j a applied thank you thank you