honor that during the during the trial procedure the trial judge made up there was a lot of hametz about that he thought that this was should be a judicial fact that we really didn't need the reports he was taking up a lot of our time going over these kind of reports and it was common knowledge and so therefore it would count for the fact that he decision was sort of an alternative decision he said if he found my client credible but he also what the problem was between the growers and your client in terms of any one of the factors that falls into one of the categories he says he had no political i mean wasn't his testimony i had no political opinion so if that's the facts how do we get around the requirement that there's got to be persecution on account of political opinion well then i think he said i don't have one i just don't want to go to work for well if you take it take into account the fact that  necessarily but that what other reason would they ask ask him to apply for a job just used to fill in a blank on that basis really were wrong i think so ok and will tell him that they slapped us that in that case too i mean the ninth circuit's had an unbroken record of getting clobbered on the head by the supreme court when we reach out in these areas we keep getting look read the statute it says persecution on account of there's nothing in there that shows the on account of an established persecution especially in a sense that it's got to compel all reasonable fact finders to so conclude the sort of like  religion is how you lead your life not where you go to church i mean it's not all that clear that you can have no opinion whatsoever almost a vacuum i mean even though he testified that way now it may not be that well are we supposed to say well he may have said he had no political opinion could we write that get away with that well he said he didn't he didn't believe in what the grillers were out were sparring to and  and he was he was tortured and executed five years after the petitioner left the country they've still active these people were out on land and they were the land of which no other place they were going to do it seems like they were the court my name is jeffrey bucholtz from the justice department here on how he responded john ashcroft the attorney general i'm going to try to be brief and address the points that the court raised just now first briefly on the country or on persecution before you ever get to how you've been rebut the presumption that arises once you get over the first prong i couldn't agree more and because of the way the proceedings went in the agency he's very general never had the burden to prove th military guerrillas for asti he was in the military not in san marcos then a different part of the country there's no evidence that the girls who harassed him once he got out of the military went back home to san marcos in march and and subsequently we're not whether there is evidence to support that finding whether there's evidence to compelling and i would point out that the standard of review in this case is in many others this very important and the petitioner here has argued harassment and it wasn't because of political pinioned certainly for recruitment purposes they were stopped asking am oracene a long time prior to that so it must be some other reason why maybe some obvious in the record but it