were forced to flee egypt due to escalating attacks by muslim fundamentalists the issues are whether the harm that they suffered in the past amounted to persecution on account of religion at the hands of muslim fundamentalists that the government i they have suffered escalating harassment discrimination requirement a first convert of forced conversion at work which caused them to first take their teaching careers they were of the female petition testimonies being true the five states incident what is the government connection to the five states incident why is he being persecuted by the government  right the administrator when male petitioner appeared to ask questions about the threats against his wife which were really just the things you had a meeting with the administrator and mr  administrator actually told the petitioner the male petitioners that the problems that both him and his wife were having were because they were preaching christianity they were active christians and they're not talking about that they were being persecuted because their religion but it has to be persecution by the government now we know for mansoor that simply because public school teachers are employed by the government in egypt that is not they are not government representatives muslim fundamentalists christians all of whom are living in egypt in different places and these people petitioners are young relatively young educated people who don't face any of the condition of circumstances as well as or that they can reasonably relocating the safely to do so the only thing she never addressed that whether or not the government that burden even if  only well founded fear of future persecution is found and the burden is in fact on the petitioner to show a reasonable answer relocation it's a dual analysis under kaiser vs ashcroft where if it's on safe they don't  reach the reasonableness of relocation she never addressed that aspect of relocation another thing is the only way she does he said they have relatives all over egypt and they're young and they're well educated and they can christians they chose that religion in their adulthood early adulthood and this particular denomination requires or it involves the way they testify spreading petitioners are in the way highlighted even from that group in the way that they are even jellicoe christians who are which is part of the mine one of the main precepts of their religion is to spread their faith so that they would be relocation was made on the wrong us actual basis to wit he was analyzing the relocation possibilities of coptic christians which have been there for thousands of years  but that's one of the issues that should have been addressed to the know she states that in the very beginning that they were opposite that they were in fact even joking krishna's just a didn't put the burden on the government which correct she didn't think they would be reviewed relocation was not addressed properly as part of the burden of the government as well as if the petitioner had the burden he showed in the evidence that he's in any jellicoe christian not similarly situated as his family and therefore could not be lumped into the same group actively pursued after death threats however never experienced any physical injury in this case we have death threats that escalated with people showing up at the place of business looking for the petitioner destroying violently his office and shifts to the government on both the they have to show fundamental change in circumstances or relocation so that should have been the burden the only thing they submitted was a country report which actually shows and in fact quoted in the opposing counsel's brief that there was violence forced conversion of cobs and as well as violent attacks against christians in egypt so it doesn't meet their bur specific generalized country can just be used to rebut specific claim on specific facts and nothing was pointed out as to which a specific facts why it should be why it should be  future persecution findings will premised on three independent and separate bases each of which is a valid reason for denial of the petition for review given the deferential standard of review in this case the government contends all three of basis first the immigration judge concluded that the harm petitioners suffered did not rise to the level of persecution second the immigration judge determined that the harm that the petitioner suffered was not an account of religion and third they harm they would suffer be on account of their religion they also had not shown that the harm they would suffer or the people that would harm them would be forces the government was unable or unwilling to control and additionally we have the relocation finding that it petitioners that was their burden requires fives issues is a little bit more than harassment it qualifies as persecution is it not well we get to the issue of who did it but that by itself isn't was the petitioner one of them going to the office and addressing an issue with his wife and as far as we know he didn't enter the office and they said you're a christian and attacked him of his let's take it in context first of all christian and she had run out of the place because of the harassment he went there to straighten that out the principal and other teachers harassed him and beat him over the head and open the scalp with five or five stitches now they were talking about football games they were talking about the i m f fund they were talking about christianity and their exercise of christianity ultimately the immigration judge concluded it was unclear what was being discussed it is possible is christianity it's also possible that it was a dispute over the way he thought his wife was mistreated but why was violence you know why was that mathematician treated by the media we don't know and was there any other point of dispute in the evidence was it over of wages and conditions was the union not representing them was there anything else other than christian exercise that caused this dispute is it i think i think that what we were uncertain what could have caused it was saying i the treatment you gave my wife is unfavorable or i'm angry at you or he could have been good treatment unfavorable because of wage and hour even if there's jenny was the underlying debate when he was when he was not in the office when he was in the office it's unclear that the reason he was attacked is because of his own beliefs of the problem that you have counsellors i understand this is one where reviewing it we have to determine there's on a credibility finding that is positive so i have to give the remarks the personally alien who is now making the statements the idea of they're credible i do not have to even think about uncredible i have to give them the benefit of the doubt as to the over mark that's what makes judge that record suggested that there was somehow some disputed evidence to stop where it really seems to me they've made a bad decision there so we got to go to something else besides that well your honor i renew my previous argument that the board that immigration's just conclusion should be given deference or but however i would also like to repeat that even if this court finds that what happened there the treatment there did rise to a level of persecution there was still the alternate independent the government that the school should should you know it should do that however the school whether the policy was right or wrong that seems to be in the face of it seems to be contrary to the policy of the country was that they did not want christianity toward the school and the petitioners did not go through the to the recent long decision which analyzed this very question on the able and want to control the holding him along with that so long as the government has a general commitment to contain violence and takes concrete steps towards realizing that commitment that is enough statement that the government has continued to take steps to contain sectarian tension we also have a police report filed in the taxi incident which was taken seriously they filed a report the police you know wrote everything down petitioner that they would make improvement in the government's respect for religious freedom that is greater recognition intolerance however the government continued to fail to print in justice those responsible for killing twenty one christians at a crucial and convert agree i think the whole thing along with the point was that it doesn't have to be perfect it's not ideal and it is unfortunate but if you can point to positive steps being taken towards a government the same reports talk about increased tolerance interfaith discussions things like that and here we have evidence in this very case of police taking claims seriously when petitioner was one particular brother was brought in for defaming islam he was released i asked a review of the evidence and i would say that generally we're seeing a government that is taking concrete steps although not