three weeks in the army and he's already a complainer and he says they persecuted me by giving me light duty after my impression is that in virtually every firm whether it's the army or whether it's  twenty four hour police station or whether it's a twenty four hour store whoever's junior gets the night shift no big deal if you're junior you get the night shift you get some seniority you start getting swing shift or day shift recollect right that he told them no they did nothing and he had some parliamentary protection that's not exactly a look let me explain private that has been to be made for her main her main problem with the with the with the case was that it but the bad things that happened to him she says were not on account of a protected ground these are corrupt officials is not political opinion or religious prejudice or race prejudice or big corruption problems and a lot of countries and it's often the most important political problem there is and sometimes there's a party that says our platform is we're going to corruption it looks like that's how hamas won in the palestinian territories them all will forget about terrorism for now we're going to corruption that that can be a political position but just because you can be doesn't mean that it always is if what you're saying is somebody i saw somebody commit a crime and you report it and the people that want to protect the criminal had don't do the right thing and they try to stop you from talking that doesn't mean that you're engaged in a political movement against corruption they attribute anti corruption views to you they want to keep things to say aren't so they persecute you they're just trying to shut up a witness trying to stop corruption is as opposed to just individuals who have been victims of corrupt people and don't have any opposition to corruption persuade just don't like being the victims of it  to tell the truth and conscious choice to put people who are guilty of murdering you know like the products or who knows what reasons he made the choice to tell the  and we deal with that and he actually stands up not to one individual he stands up to that entire community he is being intimidated by top commander if you could give a moment i have a case i had a case of the bank and it has been approved and the mother she has been granted asylum however the son she's case was denied by judge peters and he was sent back to armenia believe it or not he was taken to the k g b after the payment of the dr he was taken to armenia and army twenty days to go there was an explosion and this man who just turned twenty  claims persecution because he's dealing with an alleged prosecutor who is part of the military i have a lot of trouble figuring out these corruption cases and i have trouble figuring out our authorities we americans tend to think of politics as you're a democrat or republican you're for higher taxes or you're for lower taxes policy questions that you're for or one policy or another that the government would pursue and we think of persecution for political opinion as the government sending police or glooms around to beat up everybody is for higher taxes or beat up everybody who's for lower taxes but in a lot of countries politics really isn't about policy it's about who gets the ste i'm wondering whether opposition to the stealing is in the nature of political opinion or support for the stealing is in the nature of political opinion and whether there's any way to do it really except by opposing some for being willing to testify in some individual case here it was the killing worse than  establishing the actual connection because of the difficulties at times there has to be more than just an inference based on the fact that the alleged persecutor happens to be part of the military because there are cases where and that it becomes more personal in nature it's not just about the military seeking out the applicants it is the what is the burden of proof is it beyond a reasonable doubt is beyond all doubt your honor in order to establish asylum couldn't change it because i had already made statements to other people about it wasn't anything like in other cases for example nurse who where this court found that the individual who was in the military during a meeting simply stood up and said i oppose the war and that this was wrong there is no evidence here to indicate that there was any connection between the attention that she got from certain military figures because you're the one who brought up his burden of proof i mean he said like i was persecuted because i'm going to blow the whistle on these corrupt people and if i recall correctly the country conditions report is  beating him and mistreating him that they were doing so because they had a they believe that she was out against the entire military not because she had testified against them personally but rather because and in that regard there's still that subtle difference that this court again and in the supreme court has stated is that he has to at least show something more than at me perhaps there were put it there you understood under what about that crazy  expose corruption in person you're exposing works for the government that's enough that seems like putting it to me but it could probably be brought into line with the other opinions  his actions were based not on any kind of action against the whole military fact he even spoke with some of his when he was retrenched and see the military enough to get have a lot of political opinion is formed by one little thing and then the person starts seeing the world in those terms like oh a person might see some residences that are being condemned for highway and say that's wrong and become libertarian in their views and be very upset by keel over years later that one little thing sometimes triggers a person's political outlook in life and i don't see the inconsistency in his conduct being triggered by seeing murder but i'm not sure i understand the question was i understand it what you're saying is it's not political opinion unless it's a cohesive ideology and all he did was some sort of ideology implied here he has that tends to simply by mentioning the country ports that show that there is court corruption does not establish that these military figures especially when you have conflicting actions by different members of the military his own unit and the officers within his unit had indicated you should be careful because you'll be subject to the same treatment as the his friends who have died and have been killed and then you have the ministry of defense trying to help and trying to really investigate the corruption and then you have the military prosecutor's office who is trying to also investigate the corruption what you have in contrast of what he's established is that there were some military figures one who was high powered and who many of the other soldiers feared that this person was trying to keep him from testifying trying to