any marriage serious immigration court or judge the judge will give the petitioner the opportunity to update make corrections make amendments make additions to their statements or applications in this case did that as well as submit an additional statement prior to the hearing which reflected testimony that she gave at the asylum hearing prior to the court what you have a right to do that but are you saying because you have the right to do that that the court can't look at it and say i can't believe you missed that and the initial one is sort of like if your basis for persecution is i was fair and they came in and they killed my and fire entire family in front of me all right and made some statement or whatever but then when you have an opportunity to update that's when you decide several years later that you're going to update that your whole family got killed right in front of you the court still they can let you update but then that court can also say it's pretty hard it when you're asked what's happened to you that would amount to persecution or torture or any of those by the i j a there be a airballs about the fact that she didn't in fact say that there was a threat to her house or something like that but in fact she did say that well though there was the there was a residence there's one incident where she was going to the saying well you know you didn't mention you didn't mention the racial racial insults and actually it's just that she i did some detail during testimony which this court permits this case law that flat wrong well one of them was this thing about what she told the asylum officer i thought there was a second having to do with the threat at at with the threats to our house at some point and they said she didn't discusses constant sexual harassment battery by muslims on the street at public transportation in public she talks about two thousand and six incidents where she's and at the case of a at the time i believe probable it was not published but it was published subsequent to this case and we did we did cite that and she has problems as an ethnic chinese and as a christian and you know she has enough enough incidents to meet this burden of a comparatively low level of individual ice risk i mean she discusses all these events all these years that occurred to her her family her sons sent her letters talking about their church being threatened with bombs they're being attacked all these things together given the lower standard would qualify or for asylum under the good afternoon may it please the court attorney seventeen o f leo on behalf of the united states attorney general i think it is clear with regard to the two two aspects of this particular case the credibility analysis and disfavored group analysis and i think really if we we will focus initially on the credibility etc but i think what's important is they clear it is they focused on really is the two affidavits here it's the affidavit and they're both on their own pages one seventy one seventy two of the admission of record of one seventy eight and one is written in two thousand and seven and one is written in two that she said she did tell him please sign off from iraq i wouldn't suggest we ignore it whatsoever your honor but i think that in order to us properly assess the adverse credibility analysis and what was specifically highlighted in the agency's decisions with regard to the adverse credibility analysis was a two thousand and seven statement versus a two thousand and nine statement built statements that are written that are part of the administrative record and both of those statements conflict not conflict in the sense of the two thousand and nine statement provides embellishments in support of one's past persecution in indonesia whereas the prior statement field to include in those two missions slash embellish means using the terms of the agency specifically provided one w failed to account for the the assault by the muslim men with knives and and as well as the incident involving going to the neighbor's house and you're pro american and if you're pro american we're going to burn your house down so these two particular embellishments i think is really what the focus needs to be yawning and adequate opportunity to explain because obviously you can point a few point something out then it the idea that now we're kind of the we're going back into the testimony and saying hey she wrote this in two thousand and seven as part of her sworn asylum application again remember this is not a situation in which we're reviewing a regurgitation of her totality of the circumstances and parent and what they will i think i did believe she said it then it wouldn't be a discrepancy well well your honor i know if you believe that she actually did put it in the other have been pray at that point to say hey i think that she didn't put it in there and so i'm not going to hold it against her when i look at these two applications they don't hold it against her because they it's inherent in holding it against someone that they're different agree i concur i keep going to ask you this isn't the government's position at the incidents in this case themselves do not rise to the level of persecution or that there is in initial question is that based upon one circuit case law that we cite in our particular brief these incidents specifically related to her not was for a kid what incidents were happened to her daughter who was granted asylum in two thousand and eight and not incidents with regard to her son but specifically related to her are indicative of discrimination in this court's repeatedly held that discrimination harassment there is not rise to a level of persecution for purposes of the i am for purposes of asylum within withholding and with regard to your with regard to the second question i think what's abundantly clear and i think what's confusing and i think what she got hit were if it's if she was hit and run and and if it was a result of people that were doing that because of her you know ethnicity or religious beliefs that could be persecuted it could potentially but i think to get to your second question which was what i was getting to is that there's nothing that ties the two together other the significant patent patterns of harassment in this discrimination for ethnic chinese in indonesia and that's why i think we're i don't want to go for to find the other instances in which it seems to me the findings were incorrect she says finally she stated that she felt threatened by officials and neighbors coming to our home questioning whether her daughter had become problem there she did not however testify to any threat o harm that came about as a result of these encouraging if she did she said they threatened to burn aroused but there was nothing subsequently occurred as a result of the logic that there were no threats there were threats there completely inconsistent with our case law ethnic i think the way the agency's decisions have to really be read right they have to be read as one in the sense of the i j a in the in the b decision i think what these ninth circuit decision say is that ethnic chinese are a disfavored group ethnic chinese christians are disfavored group and i think what the agency does here in making that determination with regard to well founded fear  future persecution with regard to this particular individuals that there was no tie in specifically with regard to the religious minority i e the christianity and there really wasn't which takes it out of the realm of this case of decision in tempe along with talks about severely  favored group and what it goes in and i think what it does and here is the sense here it does not appear that the evidence in for record establishes that the indonesian government condones discrimination against ethnic chinese comma including those who are that statement enough itself raid in that particular read that way is inconsistent with regard to sail but subsequent to sail low long and hack some and hallam talk about how improvements in significant prove improvements have continuously been made with it i think it's not just this favored group and now it's a stagnant approach because of the everybody would concur that sail they said there were severely disfavored and then subsequent to sail this  that's what you wish and said that is just what it says that no that is correct and i think they do a very poor job in respect to that particular element but i think again what we have to do is really read these agency decisions together and really tie into what the here right does it compel oh this is substantial evidence to support the agency's conclusion here and i really want to harken us back and i don't want to go over my time too long here with regard to this adverse credibility decision right we keen in place of the decision those two what was specifically relied upon by the agency were those two statements one with regard to the assault by the foremost by the muslims with knives and the subsequent with regard to being called  hurling racial insults at her and when a mother or a neighbor were harassed by the by the for because of the daughter's move to the united states it goes to when comparing those two documents it's pretty specific and i think is your honor indicated your honor callahan indicated initially is that simply because she has the right to amend doesn't mean we need to throw it out and say ok whatever she said previously as in class when the question i don't remember and these cases to run together in one's head when you're reading a bunch of them was this a case in which they were concerned about whether she adequately went to the police or you know there was indication that she that she did not go to the police on a number of occasions because of one situation with regard to the hit and run there were no credibility decision that's part of it because she went to that she went to the police and was asked for money one point i made him run i believe she went to the place there was no asking for money but they told judge briefly on the on the additional steven issue once again as judge callan said she was never challenged on this issue the judge says you know did you tell the sobs yes i did well ok and that's move on i mean the government said nothing she testified to these events the daughter comes in and testifies of these events they could've called the asylum officer they could have submitted the assessment for review that they always get from the solemn office would have said what she said or not said at the asylum officer you could have that was it right why no not really judge the government is the one that subpoenas their own people i mean why would i at this point i mean nobody challenges her  telling a different story now and she's going to be asked about it that you want to you know and judge we brought that we brought the daughter and she came in and she testified to the events that her mom discussed in the two thousand and six incidents and it was es this happened my mom you know in two thousand and six she was attacked on the way the hospital and also she was threatened because they asked about whether or not i applied for asylum and so we corroborated those events and the judge they said nothing government said nothing no impeachment nothing so it doesn't point in nothing is said and then finally the decision comes and goes well you know you did the statement prior to the hearing and that's not credible it's not my mission