but of course she's obviously concerned about this important life changing case in her life and she's very concerned about what's going to happen so this case depends upon whether the court granted her asylum withholding or commence you construct your case the court did make a mistake in that there was no substantial evidence to because he knows that he can do this with impunity even though he's indigenous as well there's no police there she said there were like two little incidents of please contact in twenty six years which is incredible she said the indigenous anything to them while she was there i don't believe the record indicates that she did so but i think when you have the burden show st of all i don't know you have a particular social group but let's say you believe that if you do this this is an indigenous one and living in a remote indigenous village i think you said three dollars from the police station was a case of been there twice in in twenty six years and the judge did the place where they were all these extraordinary facts and the fact the judge found her credible and and that's also supported by the country report showing that discrimination and poor treatment of indigenous people is good but i find so there are good morning your honor thank you i would like to proffer a a different reading of the record with respect to the existence of the police there are no police in that village the record shows a r s one hundred and forty eight that there the police are a two hour walk away no i don't think anybody says they were in  correct ok so that's the problem ok then in that regard i would act go what mr baker sad about the police and i want to point out in circumstances that we have here is past persecution of are motivated by a protected ground for indigenous ethnicity or her particular social group which kind of coincides with the racial component its indigenous women own so one of the elements for an asylum or withholding claim is this nexus this mode of element and she has to show by either direct or circumstantial evidence that there is such a motive and here she testified that she did not know why this for her mother's ex boyfriend i'll call him garcia in his last name she testified she did not know why garcia targeted her and she also there's no evidence that he made any comments whatsoever ingenious ethnicity he himself was indigenous he never mentioned her again and degeneres and this court is held in other contexts that comments racial slurs could be direct evidence of motive but here we don't have that direct evidence there's also no circumstantial evidence of him targeting her being motivated by her indigenous ethnicity because everyone in their village w that doesn't explain why he singled her out because that didn't make her different from everyone else it was reasonable then for the agency to infer that he was motivated by his desire to commit the crime which is all for the an immigration judge called it a sick desire but in this circumstance with opportunistic crime it's a reasonable inference that the motive is to commit the crime and since there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to asking about whether the harm rose to the level of past persecution or torture and i think that i would argue that that is not exactly on point in this case because that's a separate element here the agency didn't even just side that issue that's a separate element the agency decided that she didn't show it was motivated by a protected grounds so in addition or showing harm that rises to the level she also has to show that element i believe that it's it's sort of case law i'm just saying that in less there is something that the board just clearly nests we assume we give them the benefit of the doubt as a is that the board based that primarily and the immigration judge based that primarily on her not showing the government acquiescence piece and having not reported the incident to the police or assault police protection whatsoever that you know the country report shows some good and some bad with regard to the guatemalan government's efforts to protect indigenous people certainly there's the long history of marginalization and discrimination however there is also some evidence that the government is trying to remedy that trying to better protect their citizens including the indigenous people i believe as i did in my brief one part of the country report that they've located several police academies in predominantly indigenous communities and hopes of training up more indigenous individuals as police officers so there have been some effort on the part of the government and there's certainly no evidence that she's just shown that the government would be willfully blind to this particular individual targeting know we would argue that under the circumstances you just described the general country report is not enough just showing that but the government  always catch every criminal or that there's no potentially finding issues or other problems that the government is facing isn't enough to show meet her burden so she would need something showing that she in particular ised likelihood of torture for a cat and this court has required that particular lies showing and and she simply didn't make that the other the agency also made this internal relocation finding where which would undermine her cat claim that they made it in the context of a simon reporting it does also undermine the clack the cat claim because she didn't show that she would be unable to just avoid him by relocating he never pursued her outside of this village testified he doesn't have a car as you mention she watched two hours to leave sonoma or the nearest place with the telephone in the police and he didn't follow her there's no evidence that he has the motive or inclination to pursue her he just it seems like every time he ran into her he threatened her but he wasn't pursuing her outside of her village so well in that event we would argue that this would be harmless error because as i mentioned just a nd ago she didn't point to anything specific in the country report that could meet her burden of proof so for asylum and withholding of removal she was denied based on the lack of motive of the persecutor and that's just simply not covered in this country report there's nothing about her or her persecutor and then for convention against torture it's t generalized doesn't show that she individually faces that particularized risk of over likelihood it has to be in the likelihood of being tortured with government acquiescence kind of a mixed bag of good and  and they're all in essentially contempt they're not there or of no value the government is not going to be protected and that is her testimony on a micro level and then the country reports on a on a macro level says the same thing essentially how they're discriminated against and you need to cook it's a communal tim effect of the evidence to take into consideration her testimony about her particular village and also compare that to the country