please the court in morning calling kennedy for a petition to resign about me on my terms every minute for a bottle it's not beyond became embroiled in a political rivalry between two factions of the armenian government when she witnessed a political assassination behind her place of work there after she suffered an escalating pattern of persecution which eventually caused her to flee to the united states including receiving continuous death threats being nearly run over by a car and being attacked when two men broke into her home and tied her claims that this body and was not credible because she embellish her story on cross examination when she felt that her testimony was not going well however this claim is just not supported by a fair reading of the record and consistently testified to receiving numerous asylum claim and then in exile an applicant may be eligible as long as there's a reasonable likelihood that the persecution was at least in part on a protected grounds here i think there's substantial evidence in the record by which to believe either that ms savio was persecuted  be electric company employees broke in and attacked her the political circumstances here provide strong evidence that the political opinion was at least a part of her persecutors motivation first and there is ample evidence in the internal affairs and the treasury department's armenian and there's strong evidence that her persecutors would have impeded her that she was allied with the treasury official and against the internal affairs department including the fact that she had a strong relationship with the treasury official who she continued which relationship she continued to have throughout her period of cooperation also that she identified the killers as internal affairs employees from the very beginning of her cooperation and finally  relationship with her boss which was contentious as she was consistently urging her boss to stop his own corruption and legal practices and her boss was closely close political ally of the ministry of internal affairs so i would submit that all these circumstances create a high likelihood that her persecution was at least in part on a kind of an impudent political opinion and i would also say that there is a strong basis in the record to find that persecution was on account of her affirmative political beliefs the petitioner need not prove conclusively why she is being persecuted she must only show evidence that makes that reason would make a reasonable person fear that the persecution would be at least in part on account of a political opinion husband and other family members that she testified to where she said that they were telling her that people were still looking for her and that she should not return to armenia because she would be killed  to leave his or her home country immediately after receiving threats while not undercutting asylum claim particularly where the threats are becoming more menacing as they work here and finally the i j a supported its credibility finding by saying that it was implausible that petitioner would continue to cooperate with investigators in spite of the rest and in spite of the fact that the investigators were members of the same department as the killers however this conclusion is really no more than the eye day's speculation and  unsupported personal opinion miss bobbie and testified that she did not know the killing was politically motivated when she began cooperating with investigators she also testified that they were factions within the internal affairs department and that this caused them to change  testified that she continued to cooperate in spite of being threatened because she wanted to see justice done because she testified that it so rarely happens in armenia that these types of cases are brought to justice and with that there's first is that the immigration judge found her not to be a credible i would like to focus however and what i believe to be the heart of the case the main pillar that the immigration judge found that u which he denied asylum and that is that even if this is savvy on is credible even if she were credible she has not shown any nexus between the harm that happened to  her and any protected ground under the immigration and nationality act there's no evidence that she had any political opinion or that she had any or that her pursed her alleged persecutors in any way imputed a political corruption government stance was in her hearing before the immigration strategy there's no evidence in the record that she was in any way opposed to government corruption in armenia there are many reasons why one such a finding for example the case of gravity which is the main case that petitioner relies upon for the proposition that in opposition to government corruption in that case this court held  facts were quite different it was not a private opposition to government corruption and grab of the local press had well publicized privacy crusade which was a public crusade against government corruption he was a whistleblower salient question is whether actions were directed towards the government institution or only against individuals whose cooperation was aberrational the fact this whole case is about investigation of a who else because she assumed that anyone calling her and threatening her must be from the government and she said she had recognized a couple of them she did your honor but those are not the people she identified as threatening her the two people that may have been involved in the crime who incidentally worked for the government the people who gave her threats and the people who attacked her in her apartment if these allegations are true are unknown for her she was unable to identify even if this court were to draw that inference here that that there is an alternative explanation for this evidence i would again come back to the standard of review of this court is that that evidence must be so overwhelming that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find that the immigration judge was in error and i would say this evidence does not support that that would be speculation i would respectfully suggest this simply of her political in her interest in seeing justice done i would suggest is smear only another one of the post hoc explanations and rationalizations that are in petitioners prefer there's not evidence and the record that she had any interest in seeing justice done other than other than her cooperation in the investigation of a crime and i would again suggest as many reasons why a citizen cooperates with the police who are matter about a criminal investigation while i think there are firm foundations to the immigration judges finding of credibility have no credibility the fact that her testimony was inconsistent that she seems did in fact come up with more threats and more intense threats upon cross examination not upon direct examination and she did so the immigration judge found when he perceived that she felt that her case was not going well  it's also impossible that if she were in such fear of the threats she's receiving that she would continue to cooperate with the investigators and finally there's no cooperating evidence for her medical injury for her injury to her toes that was allegedly a serious attack indeed it is i think quite extraordinary that in the reply brief are essentially throws a way in completely any injury that petitioner might have suffered by saying that the reason she had no cooperate ing evidence says petitioner and irresponsibly is that the injury was not so serious as to require medical attention s why she had no medical records but i would like to again to what i believe is the stronger component of this case this case is is there's no nexus with any protected ground even if you give mrs babie on credibility as a witness government corruption as a spices to thirty seven f third one zero four eight in that case this court held and i quote in order to establish an imputed political opinion the applicant must show that his persecut personal matter qualifies as a political thing not according to the case law as i read this circuit those where you have found such a corruption constituting a political opinion is where it's been expressed before one is in removal proceedings your honor  rather in this case there is ample evidence in the record that would have led persecutors clude that she was allied with the treasury official and against them and i would submit that this case much more similar to this court case  opinion i would say this is absolutely the case here where i had an ongoing relationship with the treasury official that her persecutors would have known about because her boss knew that she was meeting with the treasury official told her she was angry about it and there's evidence in the record that her boss have to be public there's nothing in this court case that say opposition to corruption must be stated loudly in the public square here petitioner clearly demonstrated in her testimony that she has a political belief of opposition to corruption not just