came to her home right get her and said they were coming back and yesterday was was listed in the local sort of government headquarters there is somebody who was was to be recruited counselor even if we accept that testimony is eritrea because she didn't want to perform this military service this national service and you consider the government's own evidence the country conditions i think that really does compel the conclusion that there's at least a reasonable possibility that she's going to suffer persecution how do you get there if i mean if forced conscription does not constitute persecution and we've held out and i'm circuit how do you get there i mean obviously well i think that the evidence  by the government establishes i think pretty conclusively two points i mean first it doesn't establish the draft of a there's generally are subject to various forms of mistreatment that rise to the level of persecution but more importantly for your question the on account of question are treated alike and that you hope as witnesses are quote singled out by the state department for harsher treatment those two things it seems to me establish that her fear is at least in part on account of her religious faith i guess i'm struggling with the fact you know obviously i mean in our history people went to canada because they didn't want to go to prison for not you know for not being drafted how you know if another country says you have to go in the military and you're there you know how do we you know and obviously putting people in prison if they don't belong in prison you could say that that was persecution but if they have but if that's one of the requirements of being there how do you know how do we get there without the problem with with that analysis  maximum penalty for refusing for national service is three years imprisonment but the two thousand and three country report says that there are some jehovah's witnesses it's a small number in that report who are accused of failing to perform national service and have been held without can't think of a name right off the top of my head but i can provide this to the court where the immigration judge had mis read a state department advisory opinion and that had factored into his analysis and the panel in an opinion off of the factual statement contributed to the decision of the immigration judge well in terms of the evidence in the record our view is that the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that draft evaders are subject to case i really think the evidence compels reversal and i just want to run through that real quickly while i have these remaining two minutes because me first the country report says that the military police are deployed throughout the country to find a  generally are subject to forms of harm that rise to the level of persecution and we're not talking about just prosecution here the law allows for a three year sentence but what's happening in eritrea is there they're beating these people the state department says they're severely beating them a risk but what the state department goes on to say is that jehovah's witnesses are even at greater risk because they say that they're singled out for more harsh treatment and it's the combination of two things that makes this case i think a winning case i generally agree with your with the proposition you're stating as a general rule if somebody is merely facing punishment under a generally a political statute for failing to serve in the military that's not persecution if you're going to be prosecuted in jail and the law of that country but if you're singled out for more harsh treatment because of your religious faith well that can be certainly persecution on account of the real the question here it's understood that jehovah's witnesses that are singled out the question is are they going to suffer some harm or suffering the rise  what you're saying that the persecution that generally people suffered then everyone from that country we could come here and not be returned to their military no because you'd have to show that there's some just proportionate punishment and i think the record in this case dallas is that because there are certain things that only jehovah's witnesses there are are so good at the way that you describe that other people being put out in the sun and being this sat in the other it would seem that any public discontent why wouldn't greater the state department says they're specifically singled out for those harsher forms of mistreatment and that's what makes this case  despite her allegations of dire circumstances she was able to raise four thousand dollars get on a plane without credentials change planes in europe fly to the united states meet the sister of the person who love the dance you marr adverse credibility finding but there was no need to do that because the with respect adverse credibility finding the obligation of the board still to go on to determine whether the facts were sufficient not dealing with a person here who seems to be fleeing from persecution but rather with a person who was determined individual who cheats which come to the united states to change her life and this is the asylum provisions of the immigration laws in this country are not th let's focus again on what judge simpson found at the immigration judges level he first found that she needed to be obviously the force conscription i think that's pretty much established in the ninth circuit must be shown to be politically motivated i think the evidence with respect to more harsh treatment does not rise to the level of discourse disproportionate leave severe punishment but i think when you read the statement  human rights report on religious freedom the human rights report also report in the case of jehovah's witnesses who perform national service were not subject to discrimination and i think that's an important piece of evidence in the record because it goes to the fact that the reason for the harassment is not religiously related but in fact it is designed to make people certain do their military service treatment with respect to that and the the the country the country report i think that the judge is entitle to look at the entire the entire record and not just that portion i think that's a that did he did not your honor but i think that he focused on other aspects of the case which i think which is the fact that in this case there is no showing of individual lies persecution these these country reports are all well and good but in to her father and her and her father's business and but she does not draw the connection between the on account of the religious nature of that her testimony is that the i j a found that her testimony on this was was was not did not that the that the court needs to recognize that the petitioner now is thirty two years old has been in the united states for five years while her parents have remained in a retreat and she's the likelihood is not the parents aren't similarly return and i think that his that's the administrative record one sixteen he he talks about the several of the facts that he relies upon from the from the country reports and also the fact that  he's not accurate and the question is what do we do with that i think that there or in the totality of the record in addition to some of the think that some of the other things that the that the i relied upon i think in terms of the the threat now i think the judge was was focused on some of these things that they are one sixteen he was focusing on the way the conditions are now and the likelihood of her h of the record a that that is supported by substantial evidence and certainly does not rise to the level that it compels the court to reverse the j's decision in this matter  and with respect to i think with both respect economic harm and disproportionately severe punishment the the petitioner has failed to individualize her persecution that a lot of the things she talks about and economic harm were happened to persons other than her she never had a job never lost a job never indicates that she even apply for a job while in a directory and i think that the judge is an entitled even without a credibility adverse credibility fine if you take the