widespread human rights abuses and he testified credibly before the immigration judge that he was ordered to out his service to murder and torture civilians and he told those who gave him this orders they could not follow them read they're difficult to talk about but the immigration judge found testimony here credible in the severity of the persecution mr lopez regalia suffered is critical to understanding the argument he made before the were unprecedented while you've been beating for years these things had never happened before nothing like that one a soldier in his unit murdered an infant by eating mr lopez were don two as soon as he returned the military base he was thrown in a hole in the ground and kept there for ten months in solitary confinement in three he was fed while in that hole in the ground under circumstances that with regard to political opinion but on religion i think it is too full one his religious experience explains why he not somebody else was the person who suffered years of beatings the fact that he is a christian who holds these beliefs and refused to give them up when put in a situation where is life was on the line he said no it's better for you to kill me than for me to have to do these things so it's is it here it's those are what just believe the cost may be a target but more for his persecution that is what caused in the immediate sense that the beatings but this court has been clear that the protected ground need not be the only reason for the persecution understood  legend that's true the two places in the record right the seat was clearly what happened or in the immigration judge's ruling on page sixty eight dollars of the administrative record where the immigration judge found that he's told his supervisors that he would not kill or torture because of those beliefs and inform his superiors of that in his testimony on page two hundred and eighty six of the administrative record he was asked what did you say when people told you murder and torture and i'm quoting his testimony now before the immigration judge which again was found credible he said i would say no i wouldn't do it my parents raised me with christian principles and i would say it's better for you to kill me than for me to have to do that that's why they tortured and be what i mean by that is the question is not did he genuinely hold an anti establishment you point or rather did his persecutors understand that he was expressing an anti government  immigration judge neither of them found that he didn't hold a political opinion the ruling was on nexus and it wasn't going to go up in the political opinion so political opinion the definition is somewhat fuzzy but in for example is included things like opposing and that's thirteen recruitment has been political opinion you know the next thirteen is obviously not an arm of the government the political opinion here was the one they understood the imputed to him was i'm going to blow the whistle on these human rights abuses i'm going to tell the international community that the water mollen military is murdering children and you know there's that expressed in rights organizations and the record is also clear that when the soldiers who beat him took him back to the base they told the superior there he threatened to report us to international human rights organizations and is at that moment where he was thrown in a hole in the ground for ten months so we look for the nexus there's two reasons i think a nexus is compelled by this record the st is circumstantial evidence he's had a horrible experience for year he's been refusing to follow these orders to murder he's been getting beat but well let me know i don't think anybody disputes the fact that this is a this is a tough crowd and in that there appears to be that he was the persecution he experienced was because he failed generally as a man or to follow orders not because of a political opinion necessarily because you know as happens in military in all military organizations if you fail orders on there there are consequences he was subjected to some awful treat not i don't think that's really in dispute i just wonder whether it's a due to the general condition in the military that that specificity with respect to that with respect to the nature of the orders he was given yes your honor he testified repeatedly that i was ordered to murder torture he does not get into details of who he was who he was asked to murder murder and torture is terrible in opposition to them is a very widely know thing i don't know of anybody in this room who would not be opposed deeply opposed to any kind of because opposition to murder and torture is so rare on something that's held or around me i'm tired low i q with that and i think the place to most makes that clear supreme court should direct were circumstantial evidence here the circumstantial evidence is dramatic escalation the persecution he suffered as soon as he said i am going to report you to international human rights organizations and council on this you know this was just military hierarchical and the need to maintain discipline within the ranks matricular with these guerrilla groups and terrorist organizations they're not interested in somebodies political beliefs or their religious beliefs with their interested in is maintaining cohesion and uniformity and if you cross the you're going to get persecuted tragically unhappy but that's where they come from is you better do what we say they're not that interested in human rights organization very interested in call human rights to protect yourself so not only is it circumstantial we had people in the middle of the persecution explaining at least awareness of his expression the stretch report the military and the nd limiting principle here is that this is a unique circumstance where you have a person who was established a baseline for how the military responds to refusal to follow orders and then not only opposes murdering babies which all of us clearly would do but has the courage to say you're going to have to kill me you may not do that and he is lying on the ground expects to die that is his testimony he expects to be killed or the fact that he has said i'm going to report you this is not the kind of organization that tolerate people going to international organizations so those two remarkable facts the direct evidence during the persecution and the dramatic escalation after he vocalized his expression or the will of the princip please the court john paul for the attorney general it's always a high privilege before this court issue before the court is exactly as each of you just stated it's whether the military officials that were seniors were motivated to punish to threaten petitioner because he refused to obey military orders or because of his religious beliefs or political opinion judge stanley spork in a district court judge in the central district in the u s district court in washington passed on a legendary political opinion nexus the answer to that question is no merely the persecution does not establish the nexus those opinions the immigration judge of the seventy one the sixty eight footnote to the agency did not ever killing babies that's something i'm not want to be an anti to something you as a military do which is a political opinion helpful thing i can say this morning to help the court in deciding this case is the focus has to be on them and not him it's really that simple but that's the st my point is they you know want to run the human rights g two military unit that he was a part of he was a seventeen year veteran and if you turn to page two hundred and forty one dollars while it is dramatic and it is heart wrenching in the particulars of what occurred there sent the get the get the big ones they said to kill them the gorilla members so we killed them chopping off their kids there was absolutely no indication in his testimony at that time factually and this is just a context understand is involvement in the military human rights organizations or whatever that's right and it goes back it goes back to your point judgments and that is that this is a the porton thing is to understand the context of this occurring this is not a gang situation in a family mother like a cruise case but this is this is a military organization that he was a part of for seventeen years he was or all nations like you were in again and started out i don't know maybe your point is that he s sea that's in the context in that we we would say to the court to be influenced by the persecution it is to be diverted from the focus where the case be done have to be the sole reason yes he's he is in the military so i mean the logic of that is everything that you do no matter what the reason there is family religion or whatever political you have to st this of being a rule it is true so it comes with it but the point is in terms of as religion what he said was he said my christian faith my belief is that i can not kill a child even that means if you kill me correct is that the end of the summer subsume what he told fact it's to the point i know it's hard to even say as to what this one is this you say you're a christian you can't do this in reaction i'm going to show you that not only will we make it the child is going to die but we're going to make sure we head where the baby is here some part of the baby's body clash with his here and that is in response to his christian rejection to what they often do i can't think of in a more despicable and incredible act and then to say no even if our parish parish but i will not draw go press this line and they understood that because they don't want other people to rise up and save my christian rejection why is that not related i think we are so used to people professing religion and being a tragic witness to religion and we don't know what true religion is in terms of christian because it is to do the highest thing is person it's outrageous persecution but what i would say to you is is that with the court not appreciate that every fact has to be considered in context with the court not appreciate that every fact the only i would give one word that would explain the context the way you're on at least give the words war war war this was war i thought our country we don't call their war that's why you have to meet with convention articles of war but this blog goes beyond we can't defend all you you say it is war it is if that's the line of protection to the governor's position no no i said i said i said to your honor that in order to determine the issue in the case which is nexus you should consider the facts in that responding to my question is active find it was christian because in in in this isn't the united states military in there not the benefit of article ninety two the uniform code of military justice this is in the united states you give you a bay lawful orders this is this is guatemala and it's quite clear that there was no article ninety two there was no restriction on the military from taking action against members of their units who refused to do what they told was a war because orders nine times he testified he refused to pay orders only one dollar time in the record did he ever state why he was persecuted and he said because i refused to obey orders on page one was there in page one  that he can't justify you know you're right war doesn't justify things a man is shooting at me i shoot them those kind of things when it comes to like killing a five month old baby there's a line and i thought that sympathetic our hearts are broken when you read this pain we didn't make the rules the congress the united states made the rule they sit in spite of the persecution in spite of our industry you have the burden petition guatemalan military for seventeen years i do wonder why there wasn't why there aren't more examples of his political beliefs or his religious beliefs i mean over a seventeen year period this is all we have been in the years was there any attempt on the part of this individual to disassociate himself from the bottom our military or to leave to go out of  wrong or whatever you know you just kept getting promoted but share with you i think the vulnerability of the court in deciding this case is to let the outrageous orinda judge gregory i don't know any other words i could choose persecution here wipe out of the congressional statute the word because and in the nexus requirement that is the that's the point of judgment in in that point of judgment you had a prior colleague judge seventeen years they found out he could drive so this sort of put him over there to drive you can even organizations you absolutely do not rule out with but robin truck was it something inhumane way they're doing it for a fact he that's a pretty good indication they know that you're not you can be counted on that you're not the point of judgement is is does the evidence  to a translator a five month old baby and they said to me we want you to kill him i said to them no i would never do that i would rather get killed before i could do anything like that a little baby like that one he's not to die in god would never allow something like that to happen they they beat me they beat me up so badly all over and suddenly they grabbed the baby and i don't even want to think about what they did to the baby one of them grabbed  baby by his feet and tried to hit me with with the baby and i said to him if you do anything something like that i'm going to call the human rights right now he grabbed the baby in it with the baby right here in my forehead and it was a huge collision between the two of us and the baby in my forehead take a look at my forehead there is a scar right there so they killed the baby using my body i just went to the ground and the bloody baby they put him on the immediate sense he was a driver but i want to be clear here the government argued below that he participated in these activities not should be open for the immigration judge and the did not reach those arguments you can see that administrative record seventy directs you as a reason is a exception to the persecutor bore and the evidence here is clear that he not only feared self would be killed but his mother his father his brother are local and that she too has threatened to kill them if you does not say so he is very much acting under duress but he did not chop off anyone's hand or participate in any of these acts directly although he did act as a driver  honor about eight months ago he has as far as i'm aware currently in guatemala and she would prefer to be in detention in the united states than in guatemala because he is as he testified here in the record afraid that the members of the g to persecute him before are going to find him and they're going to ask him if quote the united states human rights close quote was able to protect us and a specific  sympathetic but when you ask what's the fallout from the facts or the dangers of turning this statute into a general hardship stoute this is what i worry about anybody who is seeking asylum anywhere and is a member of a foreign military organization or even more just the recipient of general hardship a persecution would come up and if the persecution is a problem and it is deplorable here then we would be required to risking death the nature of the military that he is serving in the orders and he's being given in the credibility finding here and i want to be clear this is an impudent political opinion case so the question it's categorically incorrect to focus on whether or not he