founded fear of future persecution the roles that forth intercon as prosecution for participation in a coup does not constitute persecution on account of political opinion and when peaceful means of protest are available for reform armed forces of the philippines movement and they were also part of the one nine hundred eighty seven attempt to tar for the president and that you know but the difference here i is more involved in that case and after that he also suffered persecution for instance when he was detained he he he lived put in jail for a couple of days without food and sleep water and have the interrogation there were no charges formal charges filed and he wasn't allowed to see a lawyer for six months finally he was able to escape one of the detention centers and fled to the united states his wife accompanied him but she was able to go back to the philippines so she could see about her children and while she was there she was approached by military personnel who brought her to see military officers and one in particular told her that she needed to convince her husband to return to the philippines and if she didn't she could not guarantee her safety so that's and that's another point and in that time frame the officials were coming to see his wife they came to see his parents and it's his belief that the charges were trumped up because he can't imagine how it could be any kind of mistaken identity when his picture was in the wanted it's ad and he just feels that it's some government official who has done these trumped up charges so that so that right that it can't be just his is there any evidence that there is any legitimacy to eyes of the highway robbery charge or the bombing charge if mr moon are was in the united states  and he testified that he also brought some newspaper articles in describing himself the list of articles as having a certain political coloration and being accused of being the head of a political group that had done the bombings right yes was there any doubt as to the credibility of those reports he presented them was  ly counter evidence i was the i j c i don't believe the newspapers i just asked the trial attorney to look into those crimes towards the end of the removal proceedings and nothing happened with that they came back situations here one is participation in coup and i j said cheyne no applied or channel or terry you want to say and therefore i can't go to that and the second allegation is to the false charges presented by your client that these criminal charges or whatever were related to the political probable well that well we have none i mean that's what she said i mean the bottom line is that if i have to find substantial evidence and it's on your client to present it and here we have all of these first of all we had participation in the coup and really channels pretty well straight out about what i need to do on that and then we come up with false charges it seems to me mune are your client introduced the evidence of the robbery and the bombing actually took place and that the police were investigating it the fact that the police may have mistakenly identified suspect doesn't compare last finding that the police investigation was was legitimate that's the new three seventy two fred third one zero four five so how do i get i mean i frankly believe judge greer is right on point with these questions but how do i get past the substantial evidence standard here because it seemed to me that somebody your thought why your client's the one who brought up the investigations he's the one that said they'd may have been legitimate and that the police were investigating it how do i get to the extra point that you want me to make otherwise substantial evidence sustains the i j a suspicion how to look at officials especially since the one there is that he was able to escape from them he's against corruption in the military and government and there's so many people who would like to silence him just to clarify guess what you're saying is that you have to there's only one inference that can be drawn from the combination of the coup attempts and the later false charges and that is there's a hidden hundreds of torture articles seven eighteen zero and you have to go there i mean as a man goes back to the philippines islands and trumped up charges he put in jail that's the truth facing he's facing persecution doctor ok answer you've correct you have so you must be the i j a must take as true with a man says i disagree with that the man was arrived here nineteen eighty eight he's worked for thirteen years a boeing as a maintenance engineer he hasn't been back to the philippine islands and he's charged in one nine hundred ninety one with highway robbery and placing bombs as part of an ultra right inst group in the philippines whilst he was in the united states troops that's the evidence i disagree on or it's like the other is what is the evidence section section two forty two of the immigration nationality act provides that this is a review before this court on the record your honor has recited facts that are not relevant to either not part of the record or not relevant to the put to the decision that was below with respect to the conduct of this particular individual you know what i was saying facts which are in the record he says he wasn't there we have to help we have the newspaper articles which are in the record they're undisputed and they describe him as being an alter rightist leading a group of bombers in manila whilst he was working for boeing in the united states is that not pretty good evidence of cramped up charges i disagree your honor i don't think that that's evidence of trumped up charges on one of the protected grounds and i'm a w the charge may be trumped up and may be trumped up on some other protective grant right now trumped up it is a question is this has to prove the connection between political trumped up now there are as to whether they are politically motivated trumped up charges that you have a much better case on it right but not necessarily a winner how do you get around the if they are trumped up if there's no evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for a government harassment of a person there arises a presumption that the motive for harassment is political that was language used by judge rinehart in not us versus security forces and he was in rumania when the crimes were committed this man was a boeing engineer and united states when the crimes were committed in the philippines the facts are not what we don't know in the record is what basis the police in the philippines relied upon for the belief that mr menar was involved in those particular crimes doesn't make any difference if they are trumped up charges but if we assume that their trumped up charges and we assume that they're politically motivated i don't know the answer charges and assume that now the next point is if they are trumped up charges in our presumption they are politically motivated in the circumstances of this case you know your honor my perspective is that on thirteen case points to the investigative process and the issues that the police go through and what the record doesn't establish is that the police who made mr moon are suspect we're aware of his location was in rumania as a member of the security outtake when the crimes were committed those cases are quite different now do you agree that the charges could not have been anything but phony in as much as the man was in california when the bank robbery highway robbery and the bombing took place i do not agree on what evidence do you have that he was in philippines read at e r one ninety six not only did the i j a find that men are was credible but the service stipulated that he was credible in other words you colleague at the trial said i think he's credible now based on that and when he says i was in california i wasn't in the philippines how can you say the charges on trumped up well i rely upon judge  for mr moon or for the investigation of the coup plotters which appears that page nine million six are the administrative record evidence concerning the and the speech which appears that pages eight forty eight forty one at page six seven eight of the record there is a description of the judicial system and its availability and the guarantees that it affords to filipino citizens and i would also point to the administrative record it page eight zero six which is the state department profile of the silent claims it's dated september nine hundred ninety eight and it states that as to the political structure of the philippines the philippines is a democratic republic with an elected president a fully functioning political party party system a bi cameral legislature is repressed and independent judiciary although it does does indicate that there is political corruption is widespread though chain no might apply has won out for mr meehan are in this situation and that he s f he is subjected to purport disproportionately severe punishment for his that that if you wear precedent in our cork that would suggest that yes train no may be correct in general however if he's going to be subject to disproportionately punishment that's testify to or which occurred during the detention was immediately after the coup and it was the other coup participants were also arrested hundreds of people were held on board the ship for months and so he wasn't punished where others were not he received basically according to his record the same treatment as the other participants in the past we just agree with the other and we find that he that he had a we incomplete or that the decision of the v i i is inconsistent with the factual record then the court would remain under it for further fact finding proceedings by the immigration judge but in any event if the court were to find that mr man or hi eligibility under the statute for asylum because he's a refugee who's been prosecuted for one of the protective grounds it would have to be remanded to the board of immigration appeals which in turn with presented to the immigration judge for the exercise of discretion understanding with than the way the amnesty worked is that mr mack can take advantage of it because he was only in the united states he would have had to go back to the philippines ready had those trumped up charges i believe and part of th