before us today is that not the only issue well i mean it's it's the basis for all the other things if there is a plus the other issues weren't decided by the way  persecution then we think we have to go further and what else did they decide well they did decide on the issue of whether or not there's a well founded fear and they also decided on board also decided on  your honor the am i right about that there's no claim that they were the bombs were so targeting it's your client's right but i'm going to figure out ok just answer that specific question not specifically at those clients however it was in the context of they were in the church it was easter week and as mr bobby testified they were there were they were targeted because  question they were target because they were but that's and that's the being generally subject to be a member of a group that's subject to prosecution but you have to show sort of individual targeting the idea was that they're out to get you they try to get your couple of times they're going to come back you're going to have continued persecution because they're going to continue to be out to get you i'm not aware of any case where past persecution  so which would be i consider placing them from which i'm sorry be i consider pretty significant well but with regard to the and with regard to the departures one of the things that he was  asked he did say why thinking that he said that he came back because well a couple things one is that for the two times united states and going to italy said that he came back first of all he he he loved his country he didn't he didn't it's difficult to leave one's country however he didn't feel afraid coming back because at that time there was a ceasefire so he's felt safe enough to return so those were the two and so i know that the board and l but there's another thing that i think i was a little it was disturbing here is that the the board and the and the and the immigration judge found that there was no past persecution taking a cumulative approach leaving the country and come back in but then there was the whole thing with the with the with the expert witness and before before i just talked about that the thing is that the judge found found marie and the bodies to be completely credible taking a look at you know the testimony and the and the documentation of this well that's what we're talking about there incidents everyone from credible we wouldn't be talking about them i'm assuming they happened but i mean there's no help you i mean because we're sort of assuming that these things happened so and also but not all but not only the not only things happen but also the the psychological reactions to them because after the first incident mr bobby mentioned that he had a nervous breakdown he couldn't do anything his back with his body was in pain for months and the and that and the judge and the board had problems with him the fact that he didn't go bombings should not be considered part of the harm to the board noted the bombing but because he wasn't physically harmed they did not treat that as as him being physically harm they did discuss the bombing the impact of the bombing within rhythm with regard to the emotional harm that he might have felt otherwise that what they didn't suggest that that was an improper consideration because it wasn't directed at him individually right they did not consider they did not address whether or not the bombing was constituted of harm is to because he was not directly impacted or he was not the direct target of the bombing that is not a finding that they made treatment and after the second one he did leave and he left multiple occasions he left once to the united states and again i believe to italy and to spain following a trip to have psoriasis treated in france  given that those prior incidents because he returned were not treated as having being a substantial harm or a significant enough harm and shouldn't these things all be considered cumulatively isn't it a matter of considering both the beatings that occurred in a relatively short period of time and then the bombings terms of him having a well founded fear yes your honor they should be contrary should be treated cumulative well then the what do you think that the did that i believe that the board did this here they said so at the very beginning of their decision that they were considering it cumulatively and then as they went through say it sort of like an addition problem right as they went through and they saw the first  that they said well superficially right i mean you've got the beating one beating two but however the degree of harm that we count all this and the addition is lessened because in the first beating he didn't go and seek medical treatment and following the second beating he left the country didn't he and gage and some self medication isn't that part of what the record shows regarding the beatings the record indicates that he did he took i believe was that value and there was another whether or not these are permanent injuries one thing that would have been useful is to have found out whether a da he saw a doctor what specifically had what the specific results of the beating work how he was particularly injured none of that we have we only have that he might or that he self medicated he may have overmedicated he might have under medicaid but we don't know but he describes them as having created trauma for him wrecked yes your honor he does i knew primary credible and he was found credible we did find him credible but at the same time he did later i mean he did later leave the country and come back belying his blind his claim that this persecution was so severe that he needed he claimed with the third when he went to france he claimed that he went to seek medical treatment after strike after attempting for a couple of years to get us right as a problem in his hand resolved  what about the weight that we should give to the diagnosis of p t s d and the expert witness testimony do you think that the board gave adequate and if so  know why did they come up the way they did i believe the reason why they came out the way they did is that they thought the p t s d i guess what the p t s d determination from mr bobby was premised on his having been x had his having experienced all of these incidents and the two beatings and the two bombings and these cumulatively supported the determination of p t s d what the what the psychologist didn't consider and what was found during testimony is that those the there was that interaction between the beatings and the bombing and that the psychologist either didn't know or had forgotten that those that occurred and did not consider those as part of making her determination or making her diagnosis of p t s d didn't she slated it didn't she say that in the end that would have been immaterial and she would have reached the same judgment it's a fact finding determination to have said to have made the determination that essentially she was rationalizing the result once the once her having forgotten or not known of this interface this intercede in event of him leaving the country had become known i guess i don't understand the relationship or the rationality of that argument how is it that the fact that he left the country and came back would necessarily mean that he did not suffer from p t s d i mean if an expert perform tests and interviews and made that determination what difference does it make if he left and came back  it would go to the underlying sense of how severe he thought the harms he had suffered were and her evaluation objective lee as to how severe he understood or he reacted to those harms because his reaction to the events is just as much a determination of the p t s d as as the events themselves and if his reactions to those events that is after the first and second are to go back into the area where the harm occurred the immigration judge was within her fact finding authority the immigration judge was reasonable in state in finding that w in this case the board again they recognize that they that her claim to persecution was seen through the eyes of would be seen through the eyes of a five year  old and that her family's harm would also be analyzed now here in this particular instance miss bobbie so only the only harm to which she was exposed and her family was exposed during the time that she's been alive what were the bombings  and during those bombings no member of her family was harmed she did testify that it made her upset that she could not listen to arabic without getting upset  angry but beyond her being shaken and having that response there's no indication that she suffered any harm or the board's determination that she support that she suffered harm is not supported by substantial evidence of this case is not for example the same as hernandez ortiz where you had a father who was taken away from the family and subsequently a brother who was  shot before the before the the child petitioners had to leave similarly with c starts with an m can't remember subsequent case where you had an individual who was the mother was pregnant with him and she had to involves bombing and shelling i can give you the site as well it's three sixty seven f third twelve o six but the thing in that case but the difference between that case in this case is that the individuals were fleeing the bombing there was a threat of imminent harm that despite the fact that there was bombing and shelling of their homes just generally because i believe their ethnicity of the show their home person went through the right and there was no particular attack on that individual and was present at the riots and there's no what has particularly attack on that individual has been found not to substantial evidence that supported a determination of the agency that there was no pastor's occasion but counsel this bombing is an example of religious persecution isn't it's not like civil unrest or a riot is it you're not making that argument are you that this is not a well if it is persecution it is on the rose is that she herself didn't testify to much in her testimony was pretty sparse however her father did it and they did publicly men commit to bombings but there were but there are other things that were in the record not just  about them and it had an impact it's almost be like almost a second hand sort of thing but she was not alive during that time but one quick counted to the extent that it had an impact on her that that there were other places in the record that talked about the sufferings that marie rose had for example in the affidavit there mr bobby mentioned that during these bombings at home they had to they had to be at shelters often she would throw up have diarrhea when the bomb started saying that daddy that she didn't want to die another time in a shelter that they were hiding in