indicated a political motive behind their rape but for this court reason never last these soldiers are motivated by their parent decided to punish this woman as an indigenous woman but i think i bit of an overlap there but marlene your implication is that with this civil war being split among ethnic lines that the barbaric treatment of exclusively individuals hispanic circumstantial evidence based on the ethnic background of my client there are also statements to specifically indicate he was against what the guerrillas did and he was punished for that position as the immigration judge by focusing exclusively on the motivation for actually kidnapping him didn't focus didn't give any attention to that evidence which augments our position that there were political motives behind his overall persecution which to not only include the kidnapping proven not only that he suffered persecution that rose to the level of harm but also that has to be on account of one of five statutorily protected grounds and you know under the standard view they have to show that it compels that finding and in this case it's just not there now th working to support them that we were required to wash their clothes collect wood for their fires cook their meals the guerrillas also stated that if they do not accept their rules that they would be punished for that reason it is also petition testimony that they just wanted us to work for them although this is not a typical conscription case it is similar to elliot stock rawest and that that court the supreme court found that it kidnapped if to fill the ranks basically so that they could carry on the war against the government and pursue their political goals but this did not amount to persecution in that instance because the spoke is on the grill is political opinion and not petitioners and the same as here he was really taken and kidnapped so that he could help them fill their ranks and do their basically their labor their hard work again he was taken for three months captive and no political dialogue was ever expressed petitioner's theory that the on account of imputed political opinion started when they were captives they have to keep them in line they were warned before that if they did not accept their rules that they would be punished when they were asked by the grill is why he was being beaten the girl could have told them you know for your political opinion for your pro government sentiments but instead he was told because he was quote on a ministry record ninety seven we said that we didn't want to help them that way and the second refusal carlos who was one of the three that were taken and said quote that he didn't want to do the things that they did he was against what they did that however in his sworn statement the statement was different on a r one eighty nine it was carlos immediately told them that he didn't want to do those kinds of things and after i said that i also didn't want to go again this is really the isolated criminal act of going out and getting more captures to put them in the search ration that they employ and that they refuse to want to go and do that that isolated criminal act it was an expression of political opinion and it does not the record does not compel a finding that that was the case  again the statement itself was ambiguous and to perform this one isolated criminal act the context also needs to be taken into account because this is how the i g evaluated it all three agreed that they wouldn't do anything further for the guerrill he said that we defied them not because we were brave but because we were worn out this goes to show that this was the labor that they were physically exhausted and could do no nothing further the abuse that was persecute was stems from them ceasing to do work and their defiant behavior pro government and therefore they imputed that political opinion upon him however i would just like to point out that there is nothing in the record that goes to the demographic of the captives absolutely no evidence supports that  even if it was that says almost one hundred percent of the gorillas were indigenous guatemalans almost one hundred percent in a scene like splitting hairs but even if one of those is ninety nine were and one wasn't that kind of puts a wrench in that ferry but to the could have found contrary to the board we are not permitted to substitute our view of the matter of that board again i would just like to emphasize that this record just not compel a finding and finally to address the second alternative i just finding that there have been change country conditions and petitioner could relocate again those standard that this court uses is that there has to be an individualized analysis conducted and and in this case there was  well as are retaliating against former hispanic captives for any other reason and similar to this court's holding involved hernandez where the country reports were enough to rebut the fact that there wasn't a well founded fear of future persecution they also found that the absence of information in that report is persuasive that it is no longer an issue furthermore they found that note there's been no contact for eleven years since one thousand nine hundred two and it indicates that it's no longer a problem and again  case the immigration judge also noted about the gorillas chance of locating him which was one of the fears and he quotes the profile capability of the guerrillas to track adversaries from one part of the country to another was limited by train and communication clear probability that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of imputed political opinion if we're trying to guatemala all three adjudicators found the petition to fail to demonstrate this now before this court position must show that the record