the holding the removal and the the other action or is it that some item of evidence was not properly considered and probably weighed it when  but that rule requires that motive be more than incidental or tangential that the trait be central to the prosecutor's and so there has to be more of evidence i mean surely when we're conducting substantial evidence review but i j and to be a determination that they don't have to mention every single piece of evidence that's presented to them in order for us to overlooked evidence when it seems that your client mention it only twice once in his narrative and then once at the very end but never sort of made it a central theme while you're on  ok and i i just want to go back to what jeff larson said so you're saying that but because the analysis is not contained in the body of the written document we have to the circuits a circuit i believe said that it had that the motive had to be treated to be meaningful and that's a little bit lost and but where i would have to be meaningful cannot be in asylum at least it appears in the grief that petitioners have waived their challenge to the actual board denial of asylum which was based on the board's determination that under  decision a matter of venom where it set out its analysis of factors and how to determine whether or not somebody into corruption stands is tantamount to a political opinion arrested one more time for illegal assembly this is what's going to happen you are going to cost now according to patricia's own statement the written statement in the record he admits that he actually did participate in everybody that came they these rallies i mean he says they focused on me because i was part of this anti corruption political you know position and they were focusing on me because they were trying to shut me up that's is climbing here are is quitting is that it was like there's a bunch of crimes here so things have been going on for almost a decade with him in russia he said that he upset a couple of governors by failing to until twenty fourteen or so when he had a rock thrown through his window and then finally after that it took four more years before he was actually arrested for anything and that's only because he was taking active no way was he ever told look you're being arrested because of your into corruption a to instead it was based on a legal reason that he was an essential relic and then the during and where he was honor i'm having trouble understanding how we are supposed to separate when something is based on motives as opposed to political motives when mr script cobbs political cause is preventing government graft so he wants to keep people like his alleged persecutors here from profiting from government graft so how do i know the difference between their saying i just like to keep the money in my pocket and they're saying i would like to have used stop advocating for people to keep me from keeping the money in my pocket i mean it seems like a very thin line motivated the persecutors based on what actually happened here so what the agency found is that what actually motivated his persecutors to commit these acts was not his anticorruption stance but was trying to get money back to process but i guess i'm just wondering in a case like this where he has joined an a political organization whose purpose is to root out corruption how we know the difference so let me give you this is kind of a farce what's type far fetched hypothetical but let's thankfully part but let's say there's a regime that still has the institution of slavery and mr script cough abolitionist so he joins and he says i think we should get rid of slavery i'm an abolitionist he does all the same things and he gets harassed in the same way here and then the the federal police say well it's not that i i was opposed to his it's the slavery political views it's just i wanted to keep my weight but is that it is that it very different and isn't that the same thing here of these people are profiting from look corruption and he's anti corrupt i just am having a hard time you know your honor here's the wind between your hypothetical and what happened here he hasn't shown that he was actually in persecuted by the government so both of these when he supposedly twenty people in it were removed so this was not a state sponsored corruption ski whatever and if they if they were i mean if they were there or they were isn't that an allegation that they were that would make it illicit allegation of state sponsorship what do your are two things one is  again so both of these government government officials were moved and were fired and according to him are being prosecuted they're being sought for prosecution number two the men who actually beat him up were dressed in civilian clothes they made efforts to cover up their police car the license plate so which shows a criminal intent it doesn't show there you know if they had been openly acting as police officers they would have to cover up their uniforms or the license plate of their police car so i would say that this was not state sponsored these were criminals who are seeking retribution and recoupment of last funs and i think that's a critical distinction here that the agency focused on and which substantial evidence in this case support  if you understand what i'm saying here no i understand iraq right now so but but here that's not what happened so he never claimed that he a current governor was trying to get back into our current government official he all he said was that these were corrupt police are the obviously he thinks were hired by these criminals so so these little cops who obviously were corrupt but they weren't acting on behalf of the government they they were acting on behalf of criminal elements every element kind of like trying to find the nexus and in these schemes and he continues on page twenty eight and then finally finds there is no nexus on one hundred and eighty nine now he does not specifically address  each and every factual incident other than generally saying on this date this happened to him on this date this happened to him and he keeps saying like the will to detentions on the following dates were not sufficiently  one that he never made central to his to his claim this was an immediate messing threat that somehow he was going to be perfect prosecuted by themselves just because you know it was just a police officer's offhand remark and it was not central eye and that event should be i j be able to consider the entitlement and the summons in making a decision on the matter at this point if it is remembered yes your cartel there was no nexus there because she never expressed any political opinions but that case doesn't seem controlling here at all because clearly script call is expressing anticorruption political motivation  he didn't meet its burden didn't specifically say reason but even if the court under a harmless error analysis looks at this case and determines well if the agency is correct that this was not a mixed motive thanks we thank the orals for your arguments the matter is submitted and we will give you an opinion in due course thank you thank you your honor