forced to return to south africa this is a claim for asylum and the facts of the case are actually fairly simple and in and most of the facts aren't even disputed the only issue really is whether or not the policies were implemented perhaps for good reasons the government was trying to fix the problems that occur because of apartheid unfortunately they took one race the system and they replaced it with another resulting it back into the lines of of racial of what the races are represented in the country for example the white house is a very small percentage of your clients who have exactly the same  traditionally obviously there's been an inequity and there's now a lot more whites employed so there are no positions open for white people and the only positions that are open at this point are for people who are black are are colored in actually th proportion i think is closer to eighty five percent of the country if forty five percent is black our colored as they call it which is the next race or indian and the rest of it is is white and it was very definitely skewed during the apartheid system but unfortunately what's happened is when they are trying to reorganize it instead of setting it up so that you know all the way along the line there are mixed race what happen the people who are at the bottom rungs of the ladder and the lower levels are the ones that were terminated first and that's why both of these individuals lost their jobs they were hard working people but at the lower levels that's not that's why in the report that the that they judged indicated that the wealth is still skewed along racial lines of whites hold a lot more money but it's the rich whites and not the rest of the individual to be altered so that blacks and coloreds hold a certain percentage of the jobs and the way it was implemented and in effect was that people were terminated and a lot of people have been whites of them terminated so it's and that's one of the main differences between what we would consider an affirmative action program versus what i would call a racist program because in an affirmative action program you have multiple people applying for a job and they're going to one of the factors they're going to consider is race and deciding who to hire in this case what happened is not just that it was an affirmative action and this is the situation where people were actually terminated because they had to meet these racial quotas in order why you contend that falls within the legal definition of persecution well as in the courts where persecution doesn't have to mean that somebody is being attacked although they had some of the racial animus problems which reviewing once again and there was a panel of this court on march thirtieth that came out with a decision to be published com chandy ashcroft and again they discussed the same standard that's been repeated again and again in  a probability of deliberate imposition a substantial economic disadvantage and it's still their actual economic disadvantage and it's it's the same standard that's been repeated again and again in terms of economic and in the case law where they can do other than this issue the main factor that they look down at is whether or not a person is able to secure employment so that they can survive and cases where they have found be substantial economic disadvantage are ones where people were able to secure alternate employment in our case we have a number of news articles and other information as well as the credible testimony of my clients and it was found credible by the judge that they were unable to secure employment one mr gormley had just over six months that he had them looking but his wife had been looking for over four years without any hope of finding  employment in terms of deliberate imposition and if we have a law which we do in this case that the government has passed then clearly that meets the deliberate imposition and of course as we indicated my reply agrees that doesn't more a factor of discriminatory effect and i don't think it would rise to the substantial economic disadvantage i think the reason why it's so horrible is they they had good jobs they were able to work there was no indication that they the performance was and satisfactory in any way and yet they were terminated and because they were terminated they simply cannot find another job period i'd like to reserve my final minute if i might unless the court has any substantially you know whites holding these positions and blacks not being employed and and resulted in direct impact on now and other similarly situated so i think it meets the requirement without any particular issue people are impacted what matters is whether they were impacted and whether they were singled out based upon these particular factors if there were a law that says that all persons of  they actually have to be not able to have employment or they don't have resources to provide for themselves that's part of it because what you're trying to do is avoid them becoming destitute homeless you know those kinds of issues if they have other resources i think that there could be an argument made that even though the government passed this law and and it could be persecution in individual circumstances it might not be depending on what that person's individual circumstances were that's why you have a he said in his testimony that very few of his friends were able to secure any kind of employment and i think it does have some impact but i think that the it's a minimal impact on this case because he himself secure it and most of people are unable to secure it and so the question is whether there is this probability it's not could any whites ever get a job in south africa the question is is there a probability that that she will and if they're in a position where they're not realistically will they get another job when they're not independently wealthy they can't start their own business so she says then the economic disadvantage being inflicted on the other race so i don't think you can just be answered adequately by its formative action is a good thing yes your honor the there's no racial animus against weis there that can follow that's like saying if somebody had a law that we're going to we're going to say that no blacks can handle work in our that was wrong to the blacks in south africa is trying to make u but here's my point i'm not really stating a principle that i think that as a legal barrier i am raising it only because it seems to me that we can't as judges get into what's right or wrong for the society there are all we can do is look at our standard which is you know are they being inflicted by the government or by private parties that the government will control can't control with some severe march second case and it was talking about the persecution of a white family as a result of violence that this family suffered as a result of the racism of a family member and it talks about it in terms of being a social group which was a branch of the government so so that's clear it's not just the private companies to government of course was doing it as well and certainly i am familiar that there are cases that south africans obviously filed in which granted asylum what i am not familiar with is that if we have any old cases specifically on the economic issues and if the court would like of course i'd be happy to examine that