petitioners favor is to establish a well founded fear of persecution such a finding requires an objective and subjective fear and moreover even a ten percent chance that the applicant will be persecuted in the future is enough to meet that standard here we have a credible record the immigration judge specifically found the petition credible specifically fear of return to indonesia because she fears her ethnicity which is chinese her religion which is christian and the fact that she's a woman that she may be raped as a result recently this court and as a matter of fact judge fletcher just offered an opinion matter of sale or sale be ashcraft s a e l that decision today is going to be on the latter which is that they can prove that they're a member of a disfavored group coupled with the showing that the alien in particular is likely to be targeted as a member of that group there are so there's basically two elements one you have to be in a disfavored group and you have to be singled out for persecution and they operate in tandem and basically the court held that the more serious than whites spread the threat to the group the less showing that needs to be made that showing essentially is ten percent now once there's a widespread showing that there once there's a showing of widespread discrimination then it wouldn't obviously have to go below ten percent now we have a very very strong record with lots of supporting documents establishing the track of treatment that the indonesians suffer at page two hundred  tensions in many instances between the muslims and the chinese were two factors to that the problems and that the government has not resolved anything and they really have taken no measures to do anything about it there's many mentions of mob violence in the record and there's also mention as an sale that this discrimination has a big has been occurring for many decades if not centuries they were talking about how in  citizen ethnic chinese have been denied to run the businesses in indonesia they regulations prohibit the operation of chinese schools the record also has some gruesome photographs your honour's of people being raped and killed during the riots these were all admitted into the record without objection i submit to the court that these do establish that there is a pattern just that that there is they are disfavored group moving along from there i want to apply a little bit of the circumstances as they particularly apply to the petitioner first of all this petitioner has greater equities in my opinion than the appeal then the petitioner and sale several of the instances the harm that occurred to this petitioner were at the at the were initiated by the government she was shot at by military personnel at a burial perception of her when she was in grade school and the army ransacked and burned her school later on she also suffered during the riots it one thing i also want to bring to the court's attention now where in the sale decision was that petitioner specifically physically harmed he received threats but there was no physical violence there is no physical violence against this petition returned back to indonesia but each time she's returned she's had more occurrences of harm and the fact that she leaves and comes back you know there's nothing in the record you have poor incidents and that happened a long time ago and she's been in and out of i hundred in i believe it was an eighty eight i'm not entirely sure as to the exact date that was well before the indonesian main riots and there really wasn't as distinct grounds for asylum for indonesians as there are now ok well i don't say the main event when the riots of ninety eight correct your army ninety eight riots so we've got to look at the lower as well during that incident she wasn't specifically physically harm but the rioters did make it all the way up to the front of her house they threw stones at her house and the very interesting and gruesome part of this record is she was watching the media reports on t v but life she was hearing the screams of the people being tortured and killed outside of her residence and these occurred and these occurred after she came to the united states now granted the last entries into the united states the records a tiny bit unclear but i would argue that there's a reading in favor of petitioner that it was for family  he's very frightened welsh you have some family members left behind your honor and i think i believe this i believe there's precedent stating that if you're making arrangements to have your family removed and for your family's safety that it shouldn't be counted against you and never the la even after her last entry and indonesia and before she came back to the united states her church was specifically targeted and there were there was rioters that ended entered the church and they threaten the lives of the partitioner calling them anti muslim and during want twenty five and as a result of this attack they resulted in six death and injuries they basically what happened was the right in the church and apparently there was some sort of a plant behind the church was like a probably a natural gas or propane plan or something and that they were able to thwart the rioters stating that hey if you blow this up everybody's going to go because you might set off a gas plant behind us but nevertheless every time petitioner has returned she has suffered more harms or at least more threats and my argument to this is that in the aggregate if you look at the sum of all of these happenstances she clearly doesn't qualify and is this is more than what occurred in sale sense sense and sale it was just general mob violence you have specifically the military at least condoning if not taking out some of these actions during her earlier days if possible you understand like to re for how to deal with i'm looking now on page one twenty eight of the hearings which your own church burned down i answer yes but no our church didn't get around on almost the dead because i think there's a gas factor behind the church that prevented people they said don't burn the church don't burn it i mean the implication is that that her church wasn't burned is that correct i never i never said that her church was burned i said that they were they were threatening to set fire to the church i suspect that they were thwarted by mentioning that there was a gas plant located behind the christ and you know i don't really get it she elaborate that's correct your honor but however there was no there was no finding that she was not credible that perhaps the questions weren't asked but there was a specific line and she was credible maybe some details didn't get in there but she is credible and we have to take the record at face value and take it as tru now i would disagree with respondents counsel that the comparatively low level doesn't apply i think the record doesn't stablish the persecution of native chinese christians in indonesia now we need to see whether we need to see whether what she suffered is comparatively low and i think what she has suffered exceeds comparatively low she's had several problems and those are not disputed by the government either and the task here is to apply that to the comparatively low analysis and if we take which is two one three and third eleven ninety two ninth circuit two thousand and there they also cited and hard to me also cases where some of these some of them some of those cases didn't others didn't but the fact of the matter is stale didn't have any specific personal physical harm they were all threats and most of them weren't carried through and the damage that was done were to her surroundings her boarding house and to her car here on the record there's also many indication that that everything was racially molded motivated as well as the people were throwing stones at their house i believe somebody testified that they were screaming kill the chinese i don't see how much more specifically targeted an individual needs to be when the military is firing bullets out you i don't think they need to call the names of the person that they're shooting out to specifically target them either i clearly believe that there's not substantial evidence supporting the decision and that there's more than substantial evidence meeting a comparatively low standard in this case