a catholic from the state of go in india he testified that he was mistreated on three separate occasions by the hindu extremists from the b j p and the p h p which are both nationalist groups asylum there as follows in the first incident in which thomas broke into his house and they beat him with sticks for about fifteen minutes in the second incident they tried to grab him and catch hold of him but he escaped and they threatened the persecution and i refer the court to lopez v ashcroft and bob both those cases life threatening assaults were held to be a form of past persecution in the third incident he was threatened with death and this cour past persecution was that he failed to consider these three incidents in the aggregate as is required by this court in core belief if you the cumulative effect of all these three incidents together definitely compels a finding that record yes i do because the i j did not give any consideration to the fact that these groups exist nationwide his whole focus was on the fact that there's no evidence that the government authorities persecute christians and that's not the point here the point is he for his specific threat of persecution is from the hindu fundamentalists and not from the government and these groups exist nationwide in the i j a do not properly consider that may please the court my name is matt mccown and i'm here representing the attorney general united states this morning this case the immigration judge determined that the petitioner is not entitled to asylum was not entitle for withholding of removal and was not entitled for relief under the conventions  torture each of those findings by the immigration judge is supported by substantial evidence and the court should uphold them under its narrow standard of review i'd like to turn right away to take my leave it for the petitioners approach and talk about the evidence of past persecution in this case there are three isolated incidences alleged in the record below and the immigration judge did indeed look at them at the aggregate if you look at page fifty four of the administrative record the judge t look at them in aggregate and determines that they do not constitute evidence of past persecution and the immigration judges determination in that regard is quite consistent actually with how this circuit has dealt with that issue in the correct in his assessment of the evidence and it is simply not being grabbed from behind and threatened to kill the he was threatened that's correct your honor but there is no evidence that they actually had actually intended to follow up on those threats in the government that i think i agree and i will even if even if past prosecution was demonstrated in this case which just as i indicate the immigration judge said it wasn't but say it w the record is filled with evidence that the petitioner could have dealt with this by moving to a different place in india the instant the fact that you just alluded to the fact that even after the first instance he alleges he came back to go and this this court talking decision the court has indicated when that sort of thing occurs when when when you have such similarly situated i'm sorry that was the belay walk decision but and a bell a while when when this court is indicated when you come back to the source of your persecution that can under persecution and we have similarly situated family members like he has that can undercut your persecution but certainly in this case he had the ability to move to other parts of india where there are christian majority it's my understanding for the record that he did indeed live in the city of bombay for a time and there was no instance of persecution during his tenure in bombay the country reports state department country reports they cover this issue  where a christian live in the country your honor they do it in a generalized way they talk about the fact that there is isolated instances of hindu christian violence but they point out that that the area the christian  and hindu relations in the area of go where the petitioners from are generally harmonious and they also point out that india is generally a secular democracy but it's it but also discussed that there happened what they call isolated instances of hindu christian violence but indeed those instances have been reduced since the timeframe where the petitioner alleged them and draw i know is reduced even further since the political changes that the court discussed with the petitioner a moment ago but certainly  conclusion because there is no compelling evidence in this case that would comply with that would require this court to find a contrary conclusion the immigration judge on the bottom line in this case that asylum was not a status status below under your honor regarding the issue of the the christian majority states again i was trying to explain the way in the northeast and they are under their their own turmoil their very their states in a lot of turmoil and i just point you to the record on record one ninety seven in which the department report notes that interim period which is one of these christian majority states there were  s that there's an organization called the national liberation front of trip so they give some suggestion that that there is you know turmoil and stopper to struggles against the central government in the states and it would not be reasonable for the petitioner to go to a state like that where there is already turmoil and get and go from the fire into the frying pan as it were even though it has christian majority on top of that be safe in bombay however if you want to go to bombay and practice his religion and seeing saw fit to do in girls which is true doing charity work in the slums or the other poor areas of bombay again  this was going to attract the accusation the suspicion that he's trying to get far more hindus and that is what is the you know that is the source of a lot of the violence against christians in india