its actual perceived political opinions the quantum an army burned her husband alive her brother was found he called the guerrilla and on a separate occasion can apt the guatemalan military forced to relocate  restricted her access to food she was personally threatened by an exploiter she and her family received numerous death threats delivered to their homes even after relocating between the years of one nine hundred eighty eight and one nine hundred ninety seven  the changed country conditions like well that the documentary evidence that was provided  interrogated detained trespassed upon are closely confronted and his family members remain unharmed that there is not there is not sufficient evidence for a finding of past persecution in salazar the court  land and therefore i sent the letters but mostly go testified consistently that she believed that the letters were from the military and edition in august august one thousand nine hundred seven letters her children wrote to her that the men that delivered the letters to the home unknown and she testified that many well her cousin would have been known in the village so i don't believe that the judge judges believe that they were sent by men well it's a part of my substantial evidence and he also for their finds he ultimately concludes that they were fabricated by herself which would imply that he but he didn't believe that they were sent by a peasant man well that instead she fabricated but that decision was overturned by the board of immigration appeal generalized lawlessness during the civil war in crowd quite a mob between the government and the guerillas heart of this case rests upon foundations that the immigration judge found to find that there is no past persecution on account of any protected ground the first was that any harm th had occurred to the petitioner did not rise to the level of persecution because it was only unfulfilled threats the second foundation of the immigration judge's decision was that even if these threats did rise to the level of persecution they were not on behalf of any protected ground there is no evidence that any of the threats of harm came to the petitioner because of her native indian race or because of her imputed allegedly imputed political opinion bottom line is the petition uncertain why he was killed as for the brother the brother with the current unknown reasons invite and known people currently live safely in guatemala and attend university in neither case is it clear that the harm suffered by your family members was on account of a political opinion and certainly there's no evidence in the record that anyone ever imputed any political opinion to the petition  case of seeing in this circuit stands for that proposition that her harm was appreciably different from the dangers faced by herself fellow citizens during a civil war that's required in order to open her as was persecuted or singled out and there's no evidence that she was treated differently your question i would suggest your honor stands for the proposition that she was much like the other villagers forced to watch but there's no evidence she was singled out in particular and that is required in order to find that she suffered persecution because of a political opinion referring to  if i might turn to the incidence of past persecution lage past persecution these consists primarily of threats there's no indication that the hardship the so she did with the civil war while in any way was intended to be directed specifically at ms telescope areas nor that it was anything other than the hardships of civil war for example the starvation that she relates that happened in the mid one nine hundred seventy s when the government move village away from the foot hills and mountains the evidence in the record shows that that village was forced to move away from the mountains specifically for their safety he did indeed create hardship because they were not able to farm their fields but the government did that not to persecute the village but port safety because the guerrillas were in the mountains and the government intended to bomb the mountains her husband's killing which this court has referred to earlier may indeed have been tragic  and indeed it might have been even been political but there's no evidence that anyone imputed her husband's political opinion to the petitioner in this case there's clearly no well founded fear of a future persecution should this calico peres return to guatemala in light of the december peace accords she arrived in the united states in january of ninety ninety six having suffered the general hardship that is common in the strife of a civil war in guatemala eleven months later in december of one nine hundred ninety six a peace accord was reached with between the government and the  society is perfect there is still some injustice in guatemala the evidence is overwhelming that there has been a dramatic change as the growers have disarmed have become a political party rather than an armed group and th the past claim that based on her has a claim that's correct he did review in detail however the department of state reports as well as the reports of the other groups such as amnesty international he reviewed those reports in detail those are would be very much in his mind but he doesn't rely on it in this for your quite correct your honor he just not at this point i stand corrected on that point i would i would emphasize that the that the burden is on petitioner to establish evidence of past persecution and a well founded fear of future persecution and the standard of review in this court is quite clearly laid there argues that there's an alternative conclusion that can be reached from this evidence that she suffered past persecution and that it was on account of a political opinion and that she has a well founded fear of future persecution it's important to understand that even if this court were to agree that there is this alternative finding a petitioner is is correct or that they agree that it's a preferable decision that found by the judge but that is not sufficient to overturn the immigration judge's decision rather this court must find on the basis both that she has suffered past persecution and that it was on account of political addition to responding would suggest that this record cannot support such an overturn of the immigration charges decision ok thank you thank you perceived programa affiliations for example when they were confined to the center of town they were told that if they were to leave they would be killed for having aided the guerrilla movement her family members were known as as activists in the community race the ongoing safety of her family members is not supported by the record she has consistently testified that her belief or her knowledge of her family members was based on the time she left so the time of the hearing there's no proof