to the credibility decision so the question is how can the board's application of the wrong legal standard regarding credibility which is perhaps the single most important question in any a be harmless error the answer is it hands so the case should be remanded back to the board allow the board to correct its mistake and if they they don't find  credible then we'll be back again on the products and let's assume that she's credible with regard to each incident of persecution that she suffered is the record enough to compel the finding that she s as being crowded and what did she testified to in addition to the normal discrimination and robberies against the ethnically chinese she said that during the may nine hundred ninety eight riots her husband was be in while trying to protect her she was forced to flee her home during in a separate incident when she was in a taxicab with a thirteen year old daughter three men with knives came into that camp they sexually assaulted her and i'm not going to downplay it and use the words that the board used or the government is advancing inappropriately touching they grabbed better cha were she had to return because her father sustained injuries in a bus robbery another time was her mother and her daughters were traumatized because the daughter is on the way the school there was an incident and after the last take a look really fast and then come back i think she was here for if i think on one of them was a few weeks and one of them was a little bit longer than that a few months but still it was a it was a necessity to return rather than just coming for a pure visit and then going back to her country and i take your position is that we can't fully assess whether that all of that is credible at this point because any immigration coarsely applied the wrong standard so we needed to what to whether we can really assess whether those happened in the length of time that they occurred there based on her testimony but to really answer that question needs to be sent back to be evaluated in the proper standard that's correct because there's a cloud here because we're saying ok there's an alternate ruling on yaz use may or may not be credible but no we are going to those with the ultimate rule and then you've got to credit her one hundred percent and we're compelled to find that these things because that's how it seems like that's how they're disposing it well she's at best credible but even if we assume that she was credible it's not going to make any difference we're going to find we're going to dispose of this case that's what it sounds like when you're reading that  assuming assuming that even if you can't show past persecution then and then then which which again i i don't know how that is but she still has a well founded fear incorrectly they're requiring the applications to show how they are more at risk than other members within the same group and you know that the government argues this in their brief on to any other ethnic chinese indonesian so to suggest that violence against her is less on account of because others in the same group are also being targeted is simply illogical so the question is whether she was singled out from the general population not from other chinese otherwise it turns the rule on its head and we see that on the cross examination of dr winters and page two seventy five where the attorney at the court level said ok and is there anything about the respondent in particular do you think makes her more vulnerable than any harm ok so you have this disfavor group and you're assessing the members individual risk as opposed to the general population otherwise here's what i would have injured and left and less threatened than many chinese indonesians in the six years following the only harm to befall her was that she was robbed and assaulted in a taxi and make your honor if the record does not  compel the determination that she was raped i would absolutely characterize it as potentially sexual battery under certain laws at common law it wouldn't satisfy the almost rape what there's nothing on the record compelling the conclusion  is happening it does not constitute persecution yes your honor it seems cancelled the record in this case is somewhat of a mess though because everyone agrees the wrong standard was applied on why not just get it right and just send it back down and apply the right standard in a might be the same result and the case is over or maybe there's a relief granted but why not just do that in this case  establishing all of that there's simply no need to send it back and it just seems difficult to me though to to say i think this person is a liar but now i'm going to act as if they're not a liar and evaluate their claims through that lens is it  your honor in salle a case involving another chinese indonesian who which was on appeal for in very similar situation of asylum and withholding the this court articulated the standard as that a petition of us me a member of a disfavored group and then that has to be coupled with the showing that the petitioner in particular is likely to be targeted as a member of that group the court has in other places that these two elements operate in tandem so there has to be a general disfavor of the population but that sort of raises the probability that any particular individual in that group may be targeted but then you have to show individual targeting of that person as a member of that group so not merely out of the general population but out of that group so what self said was that because the records dabur says that ethnic chinese has sufficient individualized risk even if they did not rise to the level of persecution so what i'm trying to explore is that in this case is she she doesn't have to required to show that she has a wolf on if your persecution is the same but the way in which this analysis operates is that the fact that she's a disfavored group can sort of help are in that analysis so she has to show less of sufficient to establish past persecution in terms of a well founded fear a few future persecution individual targeting sailin hooks on the other cases were found that there was an individualized threat are significantly distinguish  so in sale the petitioner was called out multiple times by name by attackers so when she was in the boarding house people came and vandalized her car said threats involved and s targeted her by her name and once tried to assault the boarding house and get inside and assault her again saying her name specifically there was also another incident after the riots in which people within her neighborhood again told her that she needed to get out because of you she was the only chinese person there in hooks up the petitioner was targeted by government forces for an interview and those types of interviews were the type that somebody could be brought in and beaten or tortured so in both of those cases you have people who know these people the petitioners and her specifically going after them and could do so if they were to return counsel asked you a question earlier about the authority that robbery you know how long she was there each time i believe it was one month two months and four months that she was in the united states for the second first second and third trip in the united states i'm during which she went sightseeing and stayed at relatives so i you it's just a few things number one the government keeps on concentrating on physical injury in this jurisdiction it is well established that emotional suffering and psychological suffering  sufficient rather than having the need or ness in the society to chill physical injury number two the facts in this case greatly outweigh the facts in sa yeah she was physically riots and then the number three part is the government concentrates on people knowing the name of their would be persecutor however the second quote unquote the single out path is not reserve soley for those applicants whose would be persecutor seek them out personally and by noon rather coast tax the ins recognizes that one's chances of being singled out from the general population and subjected to persecution is often strongly correlated with the frequency with which others who share the same the same paper characteristics characteristics are mistreated and persecuted so there is no element that they have to know who you war is just that they the taxicab through her father's store being broken down the use of all show a show a nexus to these incidents or all indicative of her being singled out in fear of a future of persecution all right thank you counsel i mean i think both counsel for excellent argument on this case thank you thank you thank you