because of persecution know the government was unwilling to control him but they found that petitioner had not established that the constant beatings were on account of rape we believe there is no support whatsoever in the record to support the board's  incidents the in one of those there was a brutal beating by the police that resulted in cracked ribs they required medical treatment and in one of those she was threatened with rape rape and the evidence is overwhelming that there has been past persecution that is really the only issue on the police misconduct because the board recognized that it was on account of race they just said it was discrimination not persecution and we think there's no support applying at this level and this treatment of someone is wholly discrimination the evidence is very strong on that point she called the police several times and they refused to do anything they came instead they did come and they said there's a private family matter we're not going to intervene and then the record is that sort of reversing the presumption if it did in the presumption but the government didn't present any evidence in court that she could be safe in other parts of the country it's the evidence or if you see just in the immigration proceed if you can you can only introduce evidence after hearings closed by virtue of a motion to reopen if you can show that you could not of course of that evidence of the time of the hearing it's not when he was drunk clearly the drinking is is a factor in his behavior towards her that he called her a whore but he called her somebody who was good for nothing more than making money for him that his anger towards her  to provide protection which they did not do this court found your honor that there was an excess and that he was abusing her because she was romar half rama the question would then be under the withholding sooner whether the government governmental actor was unwilling or unable to protect her she you know did make calls to to the police this is her testimony indicated there's no evidence that they failed to respond to her because she was r that they don't respond to domestic abuse cases well and i don't think that if you please see if they just failed to respond in providing you protection if in fact that has been witnessed and used in her because she was roma the past persecution and then under the regulations that the service was promulgated there would be a presumption of future persecution and then if your honor was discussing with my colleague the  language right because that's changed the question is whether there would be a fundamental change in circumstances since that past persecution such that the life for freedom would not be threatened and the government should have the opportunity then to be able to present evidence  there indeed is a change that would afford the alien an opportunity to return without that again center where it was clear a probability that you the person turning back to the three or four routes she was detained for some time she was not harmed in any way she was asked for an identity card or some sort of document that's currently common and in these former communist countries and keep an eye on her self admitted that the was not sufficient there could show that this rose to a level of persecution it certainly might be behavior and in conduct that would be wrong and problematic but it's not on the level of persecution there has to be something more than one in dispute that that's certainly you know distasteful uninformed behavior again but the question is whether it rises to a level of persecution something that goes far beyond one incident when there are other incidents where she wasn't part i think that's the counter vailing issue here there were other incidents where she was picked up by the police and she was hard she was detained she was asked for documents and she was let go there wasn't the injury to her as to the threat to rape i think that the record is not conclusive as to whether that was indeed a threat to rape she stated that the her attacker said something about that it would be bad for them it would it would not be bad for them to get happy and play around with her i think was the language that language she was citing could mean other things other than raping someone it could it's not clear they didn't say we're going to rape this person it's also not clear that it was directed specifically at her and it's a under import and i think that it is certainly conceivable and the point of the government's point of brief was to indicate that it's certainly conceivable that someone could use a graceful or an ethnic epithet to refer to their spouse you know by  some very derogatory term and it's a way of retaliating in a moment of a cheat or anger in this case this time once anger went far beyond simple just feuds but they were for a variety of statements that he made and  there was persecution on account of a sexually perfect protective factor that resulted in a probable future persecution the government would request remain and under ventura to the board to determine whether there are change that or else you already have one i think that's extremely contrary to what the supreme court indicated inventer your honor which was specifically that if you have to have an opportunity to look at change circumstances here it hasn't been five years it has been three she's