of cases like this and this one was different though this one according to the record started out with your client approaching some people who had he said said some bad things against the sikh religion and he was trying to get them to stop preaching their religion they didn't like that so they had some words of the mob he went to the police they said like this happens again as you know some religious dispute here but it happens let us know w help you so then the second time those same people apparently found him the street and again it was a religious argument now normally in these kind of cases we get where somebody just unprovoked attacks but in this case he was the one who was the person who started the in quotes fight how does that rise to the level of persecution in the immigration law determination that is to be a rise to the level of persecution don't we have to find that no reasonable person could find anything but that it was persecution well certainly  substantial evidence standard right and so we why does the record compel the conclusion that and you must only be talking about the second incident because the first one wasn't persecution so why does the record instructions and requesting help and investigation maybe that's that that is going to the police goes to the separate issue i wanted to ask you about which is whether there's government acquiescence or government involvement in this conduct  i'm looking at the first part so you've got one beating let's call it a beating the take it in the light most favorable to your client on the street by somebody that he's angered why are we compelled to the conclusion that that that incident arises to the level of persecution basis for the harm was religious i know i'm perfectly with you on the notion that it was because of his religious or political beliefs not everything that happens to you because of your religious and political beliefs or rises to the level of persecution so my question is why are we compelled to the conclusion contrary to the i that this incident single incident arises to the level of persecution and i was thinking before because the police acted there and see him and what we're missing each other is i think the police protection could establish government acquiescence in the beating i'm not sure it does but let's assume that it does i'm still focusing on the incident why does this one incident compel us to the conclusion that your client was being persecuted as the petitioner is third the d s s held a position of power that was a canto a governmental powers so that when they attacked him for his religious beliefs it wasn't just the dss of private entities offshoot of seek but it was a group that also helped political clout so but council with respect t say anything bad about my religion and that's where they got and the problem but as my colleague points out it's hard to see this is not an employment situation it's not a question of a power it's simply some people in a splinter group getting in a fight with your client and they don't have any more power in the sense that i think you're talking about then your client does indeed if anybody had the power would be him because he is an adherent to the majority in actual physical control of punjab so i do we deal with this the background documents show that the mon party was not in power at the time i believe the congress party was in power and d m and not in the country overall now we're just don't argue that the d s s was not a private group now and i'm willing much case easier for you let's assume exactly the same thing happened in the police arrested your quieted beat him up so we have clear government action one incident when incident of a pool of police misconduct there's that compelling finding of persecution or is it up to the i j a to discern on the facts whether it arises to the level of persecution of course the i j a has a level of discretion and can make that determination of a the particular facts of an applicant's claim rise to the level however no case law indicates that there is a minimum number of attacks or incidents of harm that  all face persecution or that the police both of those are fatal to his claims in the courts you are representing the attorney general actually right yes or not the united states i just want to make can i ask you i thought we had cases that were pretty clear that being beaten into unconsciousness was a severe enough form of harm to constitute persecution i'm thinking most recently of parata just from last year we said that that is what happened to the petitioner here he was hospitalized for two weeks as a result i thought i thought her case i was pretty clear that that's plenty so severe enough to rise to the level of persecution what's your what's your response to that  instead running facts are very important and so for example here in this case while it's true that the petitioner was beaten and it's true that he awoke and from an unconscious state and was hospitalized it is also true that he was found to be young and in good health and able to find appointment in the immigration judges relocation fighting and so stop there because you veered off away off the question i asked the relocation finding is an alternative ground that the i a offered at the b i didn't reach so we can't rely on that right might well be supported on on remember i'm just talking about the threshold finding that the i j in the b i a made here that being beaten until you unconscious and being hospitalized for two weeks somehow does not rise to the level of the severity of harm necessary to constitute persecution i'm just not finding any support in our case law for that proposition but that that is the direct result from the standard of review the record must compel the conclusion that the harm was so severe as the constant persecution and so in the hocks her case for example two broken bones and severe facial bruising after a lifetime of discrimination even cumulatively didn't establish the requisite level of harm and so the the rule is not that well is that it's fact intensive in here while beaten the record also establishes facts that that he was young and in good health and the two that you are in some tension in the sense that going to your honor's question which is what about the essence of the beating the harm itself is that not severe eno where the where the agency has found that it is not the burden is also did you think the age of the petitioner makes a difference so if i'm young and strong and i'm beaten with sticks that's not persecution but if i'm old and frail it is your honor it's just one of many relevant fact what i'm asking whether it's relevant i think it is your honor because it goes to there would i think that if we if we change the facts in this case it is easy to see how results different results might accrue while but i'm not i guess my question is why use is age and health relevant to the issue of persecution if well to come out at a different way if the beating resulted in an consciousness for which the evidence show that there was a long term debilitating effect there was some cognitive impairment there was an inability to function in some way that had been taken away from the petitioner as a result of the harm same harm different results age may be a factor in that she i understand how that harm factors into the cat determination because some harms don't rise to the level of torture but i'm not sure why the harm from a beating is relevant to the notion of  persecution is there a case that says that right of the the goal the case makes clear that not every form of mistreatment at all and i agree i agree that's not my question my question is is there a case that says something which might be persecution when done on a on a strong weak person is not persecution when done on the strong person you are i don't have a case that says that it's obviously i can't i'm unaware of what i know i simply point out to the age because that's a fact found in this case that's not in dispute and so i think it is relevant to the question can you address the issue of government acquiescence because it's obvious the government didn't inflict the harm here observed the of the two encounters with the police the only second one we care about that's correct that's exactly right and there this record the evidence is that he asked for assistance the police and again records record evidence must compel the conclusion that the police are and that's the only evidence that we're focusing on a police acquiescence is them saying i'll investigate it if you bribe me more or to exact words but that's correct your honor but you know nothing else on that on the acquiescence issue in the record no your honor i think it's i think it's limited to just that that finding based soley on that encounter and  this court case law and i'm thinking of the of the for ruby case in the free a case or has encountered factors wherein there is a bribe levied against an applicant in exchange for police activity of some sort and the the alice's has always been more than simply that a bribe was levied so there is no per se rule that says if a bribe is levied and that automatically the police are unwilling and that makes sense because the bribe itself  is inherently it's it's fluid it's an inherently fluid pediment maybe they will maybe they won't clear and so the record evidence surrounding the leving of the private was critical for example the f b i case where in the state of god bribery was a national practice and the petitioner established that regardless of the bribe which i think was actually paid in that case regardless the police would not have acted because they never investigated crimes of  interreligious violence your friends was talking about who controlled government who was politically powerful is there any evidence in this record that might support the notion that no bribe was demanded because the d faction was in control of government some we're going to have to have to dig pretty deep to find any kind of connection there it's it is clear from the exchange between the police and seeing that political opinion was not in the offing short of government acquiescence i'm not clear on the government's position of the attorney general's position here you're saying that the police can or the police can be deemed willing and able to help someone if they condition their help on the payment of a bribe that the person isn't able to afford that's the position of the united states government no your honor the as always removal as was conceded here this is this is only about whether the position has met their burden to establish a belief or that saying must establish that the police are unwilling to assist on these facts and i get there and why he says that i went to them for help and they said we won't help unless you pay us a camera that i got twenty five thousand something whatever the amount was yes and it was beyond his means and so therefore he walked away without assistance yes but but what's what's important though is the context so that there is before the court not just this single exchange where the cops are looking for money there is a larger context where bribery is a case of in india but at the same time the indian government is taking active steps to  and prevent my correction i'm sorry me interrupt you to finish your thought must there be a nexus between the police on the willingness and the protected ground your honor my understanding that the protect the the protected the next this is between the harm the harm must be inflicted on account of a protected ground there by bus the other than i and that's clear my question is what if the police are equal opportunity corrupt well taken we will take money from anyone to investigate i think it's it's much more difficult in that circumstance to do so i think i think it's much easier for an applicant when they can point to a bribe in the content in a context like ask for bribes from sikhs but if they ask for a bribe and and they are working for a government that is specifically set up to suppress an ethnic minority so that's a for rigged case then the bride all of a sudden a bride takes on an extra level of imminent thank you very much for your argument oh  left not one case does or have to be a nexus as my colleague questioned as there had been nexus between the willingness of the police to help and the reason and in this case why your client was persecuted in other words they have to say well because it's a religious issue we want help and believe there should there should be such access because i'm just the fact that the police are unwilling or unable you cannot seek government protection against those who are in the second argued case the day which is organ versus