be bothering the person is imputed political opinion yes and here it seems like there's another logical reason and that is he is suspected of reasonable cause of the crime of harboring harboring is a crime of the united states in most states it's a crime whether the person harbored is innocent or guilty and whether they're right we charge the wrongly charged and therefore it raises an inference that perhaps the entire allegation of harboring was ill conceived i agree with you that it certainly gives plausibility to that inference but our standard of review was such that the political opinion in france would have to be compelled and the so the exclusion of others and not really possible but your honor what about the third of rust in which he was falsely accused of having knowledge of militant had a legitimate reason for a grandfather had it in the past to help individuals who were fighting against the government for independence this concept of college and you've noticed that perhaps although he doesn't know some of them might have been militants involved with the he gives them food clothes and takes care of them ten or twelve times and the police think rightly or wrongly that he's committing the crime of harboring  really see why it matters that he imagines or perhaps thinks correctly that these people have not done anything wrong just what it means is that the police are not persecuting him for political gain in the larsen represent the attorney general in this case an asylum officer an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals found that follow that allies and there's deference because that's one that doesn't actually answer my question is what the individuals actually did on the ground with respect to helping the militants giving them at he actually was tracking them and and that there was a legitimate investigation going on right in fact the police called him in on that and that occasion and said that you weren't being investigated for this which is a criminal for th well what's the government's position governs positions we don't have to get that far because what we're looking at is the the actual government's going into am rooting out criminal activity which they have the right and duty to do them for the purpose this question that the government's position on meetings is important to this panel's decision what is the government's position that it's ok that it's greasy kid stuff that it's horrible  that that eight a sovereign government has the duty and ability to investigate criminal activity as part of that investigation the the tactics that they use is charging someone or not charging them and keeping them in custody for a day or two longer than you should have using abusive language vocally demeaning someone we could be eating  persecution has to be an extreme concept and we listed a litany of cases where the nicer guy had in fact found cases where a person was interrogated and beaten and beaten on several occasions and this court found that that wasn't persecution so the bottom line is absolute lowest that you could go on this if you're trying to trying to find and again i'm not giving up on my first concept but if you say if you if you go to this and you want to talk more about it an absolute minimum that this  what is persecution what the nights are going to be felt persecution is which is an extreme concept mr singh provided food shelter and clothing to terrorist there's evidence of legitimate and logical prosecutorial purpose it was in his right and duty to conduct a criminal investigation in the criminal activities there are factions t immigration judge found that mr singh was in fact aiding terrorists and also the fact in the spirit is the political climate in india has changed so that your question