seventy two to ninety five three twenty two three forty four and communists obviously oppose the capitalist system but does that mean that every attempt to shake down victims for  ministerial organization explicitly accused this man of making money on the sweat of the pour in communist doctrine what that really means is that he's a capitalist all capitalist economies stock and make their money on the sweat of the poor just going back to my earlier question wouldn't you expect the shining path to go after the wealthiest in the country if their motivation is to finance the revolution stalin was successful and became the government i'm talking about in the early days are you suggesting then that any bank iraq or any banker he robbed automatically became eligible for asylum in the united  states as a victim of political oppression no they weren't just simply attempting to get money from the business rather they attempted to kill him and his business partners and they cues him and his business partners again of being his role as a capitalist accusing him again of making his living illicitly off the sweat of the poor and what is the evidence beyond the mere refusal to pay that shows things that make this case and might in my view a clear cut one all he has to demonstrate is that is the reasonableness of his belief that he was targeted in part because of his support for capitalism it's hard to imagine what other evidence he could have presented that these the straight that the sender when they spray painted the walls of the company when they're not going to have time to scrape the entire communist manifesto on the wall of the that it's on page two of the record it's the bottom paragraph there page two i'm with you the one that starts the immigration judge did not enter begins moreover even if we  so how can he show if you didn't report it and they didn't know about it what were the link i want to come to that is i just first i want to make clear that the b i didn't really consider any of his testimony if you look at this except for the fact that he didn't report well that's not the only other evidence the evidence of the record this is just his testimony most importantly on page one eighteen says that quote we did not call the police because we know that there are people who how much worse could it get i mean they tried to kill him of age they blew up a truck my thinking on that is that if the police were involved and they could make their whereabouts if the police knew their whereabouts and communicated their whereabouts face value what he's saying is i am suspicious of the police because i think they've been infiltrated that still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the government was unable or unwilling to control the fact that he had a subjective believe that that was true doesn't mean that if he had notified the government then they wouldn't have known any two points your honor i mean first i think it was legal air for them not to consider the testimony that decision when they say the only other evidence is this the only evidence in the record if you believe the board here is his testimony that's testimony supports his view and my view if that's the only evidence well that arguably should be enough at a minimum case has to go back on that point so they can consider the targeted by the shining path on account of the political opinion decision of my show that he held or that his person believed that he had a political opinion and that he was persecuted based on that opinion the side and they not only want to overthrow the government they want to exert state cuban style government control over what would have the formally private enterprise right they want the government's own everything in to steal money well there are objective was not based on a political opinion because you know if you would do this to one company and you do it to have a dozen companies and you do it to a dozen companies pretty soon you however just the very fact that they were active at that time does not and of itself conclude that the government was unable or unwilling to control them nor specifically that the government was i able or unwilling to case we don't know that because he never tried to do that that there how there are have been instances in latin america where former revolutionary groups have been incorporated into the government lay down their arms nicaragua was probably the best example where the sandinistas are now only a political party and their former revolutionary leader daniel ortega is now the president of the country but that's not true i were motivated by the petitioners political opinions how is this case different from the series of cases involving the new people's army in the philippines and their exist or show business owners now you're on it and the slow and the slogan explicitly as and have the ins the petitioner was specifically told by their persecutors that it was because of her work and their their belief that path i might agree with the first part of your clause but i'm having trouble with the second part of what you just said in light of the slogans on the wall because if that you know that the me chinese have are basically to establish a communist style government in peru then the slogans that they painted are perfectly consistent with that political view are they not accusing the petitioner of basically making money off the sweat of the poor worker i would i say that that statement and of itself you don't think that's consistent with the shining past political goal view well yes i'm sure it's consistent with that if however i don't feel that just that statement in another self without more  s that they were politically motivated or that they were imputing a political opinion upon the position as far as the position was also required to show that the government was unable or willing to confine willing to control his persecutor and he did not do this in this case again he failed and he said that they were afraid to report these kinds of extortions to police authorities because cinderella man also had infiltrated the police because the vi commented on that testimony at all  of making money on the sweat of the poor very little difference between the two the same conclusion applies the communist guerrillas in peru imputed a pro capitalist political opinion to this individual and currently ongoing that the opponents and proponents attribute political motives to their opponents and want to eliminate them is it your position that in any country the government is either unwilling or unable to control violence requires a showing the government has a radical did it or almost eradicate it the the petitioner would have the obligation and this court has ruled that an individual's credible testimony can be sufficient to meet that burden and it's our view therefore that the board's explicit failure to consider that evidence has legal air moreover if that's the only evidence of record and the board says that implicitly at least that is the only evidence of record then that testimony that credible testimony would compel the conclusion that invest particular case this individual could not have gone to the police because they ha think i understand that you're not get me beyond subjective really then i think the better the best way to handle that your honor is to simply recognize the board didn't grapple with this question at all and under mr joe took him a little over his time council would you like to respond to either of those answers to the questions you don't have to but if you'd like to ok thank you thank you both for your arguments has to start it will be submitted for decision