persecution here also but boy provided credible uncontested testimony about receiving various threats from the fark in colombia and as such he has demonstrated past persecution and therefore this court should are sufficient to qualify as past persecution demonstrating a subtle now question does not indicate that every time a government actor threatens the life of someone in passing th persecution instead it's pointed the context is important and crest and the progeny of that case of indicated a handful of things that this court tends to look at to determine whether a death threat is credible and sufficient qualifies as persecution the st factor to consider is whether the person communicating the death threat has the ability to follow through on in cressman it was immense thirteen and this court noted that that particular group had members rd whether the threats are isolated distant from each other whether they are repeated and then finally the method and means of how those threats are communicated that is in writing in person or even through other types of communication and i would indicate that all of these factors these context clues indicate that the the communications here to officer but boy are indeed credible death threats that qualifies persecution  can i just ask so is it your understanding that the d n i a sort of made what we would think of as a fact error that no reasonable fact finder looking at their surrounding contextual facts could death threats plus which is what the agency here argues for in its response brief that they are saying that you have to have a death threat plus some form of violence or harm to the petitioner a family member or someone closely fark member and that seemed to be the support for their determination that these were not quote sufficiently minutes thing to be credible death threats and of the circuit precedent so i do believe they apply a standard unknown to the circuits case law that requires some sort of in person or extra act for a credible death threat to be passed persecution and i do believe this comes particular panel indicates clearly that they did need to reach the question of whether these death threats were persecution by judge a g points out his concerns that here those death threats because they were distant verbal threat s and that he was never physically harmed he expressed that he was very dubious that would constitute past persecution and it seems to give credence to the government and the urging this court to adopt an analysis that is unknown to this court and i think the better way of describing it is maybe those are factors maybe those are context clues that would indicate whether these threats are credible or not but it's not a separate eligibility criteria for immigration judge that for the st year of his retirement is pretty quiet but two thousand and thirteen apparently the far kid fountain and noted that and the st death threat you are now but now that you are out of the police force we will take care of the pending issues that's a quote from the note they got it was doored so this is pretty typical of the evidence the record has evidence that fark does target former police officers and it appears  lobbying government you know ron or i i believe that there were political talks between the fark and the colombian government to try to to come to some peace treaty in two thousand  but i but i would also suggest that that may go to an analysis of whether my client can prove or should say whether if we've shown past persecution the burden shifts to the government to show that to rebut the presumption of archer future persecution and then if they can rebut it then my client has the opportunity to try to demonstrate a well founded fear of persecution  overcome the presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution and then i believe your honor that these questions of whether fark is still if i have a threat it may be relevant but for of messages between january and may of two thousand and thirteen and of course that nine hundred and ninety five is important ninety five death was important for context to point out what the fark meant in two thousand and thirteen when they said the at that time in colombia he had subjective and objective fear that he would be murdered if he didn't leave and again this is the asylum cases are very fact intense and they have a lot of different issues are different than just walking by some of the street these folks knew where he lived they knew what his children were around the country and they made it clear what they were going to do and for that reason we would ask this court to grant this petition and remand this case back to used them to give context to the meaning of the two thousand and thirteen for us that would be in the stake yes every thank you what i what i will say is that all need to shut up or gonna kill you for your understanding i'm sorry your understanding of crespin is that the court discounted the true threats that were pushed under the door those were not the threat the only threat that really counted was the one that was safe to face something to our precedent i don't see any language you're you're talking about the facts underlying the holdings but when you look at the actual language point just so i make an explanation and there is no explanation with as to what the death threat needs to look like isn't it slipped under door  it face to face is it but i didn't the implication that it really doesn't matter that any credible threat of death is the veering off to write rise to the level of persecution the fact that it wasn't qualified as sort of the point when the death threat came face to face a problem that one was particularly horrifying the following the husband  and i do want to say that even if i thought our precedents supported the requirement that a death threat be delivered in person and i don't see that i don't even understand the intuition driving it  strikes me that coming home to your home and finding a note shoved under the door where you live is pretty darn scary and maybe even scarier than sort of running into someone in public where you might feel less safe anyway who says something to you so i just don't not only do i not see it in our case i sort of don't get what you're driving at what is so why would we attach some significance to whether a threat is made face to face rather than in a way that alerts the person being threatened that the person who is threatening to kill them knows where they live not whether they are delivered face to face i'm just asking you what is the commonsense reason why even though we had never before we might be moved to adopt such a requirement and it's clear that only threats delivered face to face and not those shoved under somebody's door may be credible because that's what you have in your courts right now there are no cases currently that say  much much be vocal before getting getting to past persecution and i can i can tell you a bunch of military death or military and no longer plea and that's out of his own statements and so i guess i'm moving forward but yeah but if you read what's written and i would argue that he was killed because i nap because i honestly and so i'm sorry i'm sorry counsel to say that again i just wanna make sure i understand that the get his staff except for why to protect and for your is the reason you're saying this because you think that mr big lawyer should sort of separate that out and be thinking like look fargo only f the people who lied to them so i'm probably fine here you know i i'm not trying to be as ridiculous as it was and i don't understand why what point you're trying to make i'm trying to make a point th that's not you know look catch one of your children and let's see if you appear but that's not a threat against his daughter it's not that's not a threat against him i started so and he the one who says i'm not hiding he's simply text message to the petitioners and she says i'm not hiding i'll be back in twenty days at the end of the month and that's  but that was in response to what she had said to them if you look at page a r four hundred and sixteen his this implied and even if you look at the opening brief at seven the petitioner says there are at least five to read tons to two thing stuff that ok i would challenge you to find a case i mean i guess this might be a where the threat without further without further intimidation or confrontation a lot of  the children coming into the store happened on here i'm sorry i mean the store received multiple phone calls and also had direct contact but not with the gang members i pose in council indicated that this court would be writing a new case law if it's found in favor of ostrava doyle and i think that this court would be simply reaffirming the case law that of the circuit that has been the case all the circuits for at least the last decade if not farther back to the leak case in two thousand and five and the nd point is just the emphasis of that case law is that context matters and this idea that what i gather that the government would prefer to have some sort of express we're going to kill you language and one of these this is simply not required and if we focus on context right things that do not say i'm going to kill you clearly are death threats and the one example i can kind of think of is if i tell my daughter where to go swim with the fishies and by that i mean camp on the beach that's not a death threat but a park with a note case law indicates and i would just urge this court to apply that to the facts of this case and grant this petition and remanded back to the immigration judge for further proceedings thank you