not only draw that inference for ourselves into that no reasonable fact finder can do otherwise and that's what i can do anything that you can indicate from the evidence that will strengthen that inference we really need to hear about for i understand  because of that finding you supported by the virtual leave all of the evidence of record and more importantly fisher has not identified evidence which compels a contrary conclusion addition or argues that the mistreatment experienced by him was m out not only because it was a refusal to join the rebels but also in retaliation for political opposition on account of his ethnicity a member of the mandingo tribe and therefore that there's a next between mistreatment of the protective factor  be kind this argument appears to be made out of whole cloth because there's absolutely no evidence in the record absolutely no evidence in the record that supports it for another group he's but i think first of all the government doesn't appear to dispute that except in his testimony is true he was mistreated in a way that would constitute persecution or focus appears to be on the on account of like the board certainly assumed that he was credible and assume for determination nothing that happened to him was on account of the protective factor that that's where we are and that's right that's right you're right and i apologize for getting off track if i did again there's no absolutely no evidence that anything that happened to mr  alone was on account of either is political opinion or tribal status he testified that neither he nor his family participated in politics or expressed the political opinion and sierra leone he poured in the president he stated that he supported the president that's his testimony but he also said in his declaration that he didn't support either the government or the rebels so i don't know what you know you're you can't believe that testimony because he said two different things but in any event even if he did support the president he never expressed that opinion and he didn't express an opinion how were the rebels able to determine that he opposed them he never expressed an opinion he stated  one of the tribal land that is the president is of the same tribe than murray is the way he would call that ethnic or political that either one would qualify so let me get that argument that was my next point there's absolutely no evidence either that the rebels had an the conflict is based upon rebels who wish to obtain political control they're just a faction of people mr goodere i conceded his testimony that the rebels are compose leone so obviously they can't believe that every man doing it was against them they've got members who are mending those they can't have any incredibly crazy animus against them because they invited invite them into the fold and fight alongside them again the state replete with evidence of the used horrible things they do to everyone there is absolutely no mention in any of the reports of violence against banding of specifically animus towards mandingos specifically or that  there is some political division between the mandingos and the rebel group didn't find the rebels as a faction that seeking to gain political control presumably if they're going to abuse people they're not going to abuse their allies they may use that to me be random again there is no evidence that would allow the persecutors as you call them the rebels to perceive mr duke or i as an opponent i guess and eat testified that he is he and his family were not politically active they never expressed any political opinions did either based upon his travel felicia or based upon whatever political opinion he he never expressed now elias decorous appears to be is controlling it appears to be the closest to th have an explanation for it he said that they carried off some they killed some and some they left alone you know i think it's kind of telling that they didn't i mean i think it supports i know the immigration judge as adverse credible information is not the way to kind of support mean the state department board in the other reports established that the event that the rebels were not interested in older people they were interested in persecuting and harassing and intimidating a lot of people but the people that they were interested in recruiting for young people were young people obviously that they whose minds they could more i assume an eighteen year old would have been a perfect target i suppose but in any event mr hooper i testified that there was no particular reason why they didn't choose him they said he said something like they took ten percent  of the men and left the rest of us left the rest of them alone again there's no evidence of them in those constitute a social group either because in order of this court case law holds that in order to constitute a social it was not on account as i've explained not on account of fact or protected by the act it was on account of the rebels propensity the deal on the violence to all they encountered not on account of a political opinion which was never express arguments which he says the status is that's fair that there's evidence in the record of the board ignored that there were problems in the refugee camp when he left well that's not true he left six or seven months before these problems arose so there is absolutely no basis for his assertion that he was not in the city that he was in a safe haven he left his mother there he must have thought it was a safe haven in fact