please the court i'm charles nickel caring for the petitioner this is a long tail this is a ukrainian asylum and withholding of removal claims based on religious persecution and the petition was found to be entirely credible entirely credible witness by the immigration judge and by the board of immigration appeals the major issues presented are whether it reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find that the harm suffered by the petitioner amounted to past persecution and that she has a well found fear future persecution and secondly to what extent is her claim of past persecution and if your future persecution undermined by having returned to the ukraine from the united kingdom four it shouldn't happen today they were nasty about people because of the age when they chose but there is a difference between discrimination and and persecution belief clearly held that you have i asked why can we say there isn't substantial evidence to support the board in its finding that this was only discrimination and rosicky to do that we really have to conflict with with precedent decisions of both this court and the clear this this is not a case where it's just a matter of discrimination that the board noted that over a fourteen year period this person was  subjected to mistreatment by ultranationalist in the ukraine they state that from one nine hundred ninety four when she joined your church until august of two thousand and eight when she entered the united states respond it was pushed down insulted spout upon cost her congregation had difficulty finding a place to worship including incident in one gathering where the place was set on fire and the police did not exist assist the congregants or rather blame them for the incident but there was for over fourteen years who is twelve effect of threats and robberies or extortion even where there is no physical contact occurs may be sufficient to establish a persecution the persecution concept of persecution encompasses a the the board i think that gives the ukrainian government quite a passage that says that this is just discrimination and harassment from private citizens that doesn't rise to a level of persecution however it appears that the police directly participated in the burning of the place of worship or at best condone the arson she states in record one seventy five the police came and they set the building on fire instead of kind of blaming the punishing the crowd they blame does well there's two ways to interpret that either the police directly lit the building on fire or the mob waited for the police to arrive and then committed arson it's almost like waiting for  because you don't want them to miss it the police also directly threatened this petitioner with death the after being in another incident after being threatened insulted by civilians when she and other congregants were distributing bibles she decided to make a report to the police the police the responding police officer stated quote never again show up in this area if your neighbors don't kill you we will come and kill you and that's  the medical clinic refused to provide assistance after they saw the religious literature that she was caring in another instance or her her place of worship was pelted with stones during services  t the the series of abuses that she suffered during this fourteen year period being physically assaulted pushed down spat upon insult to due to her religious beliefs fired from her job having rocks thrown to the window over a place of worship having another place of worship burned being denied emergency medical treatment being accosted with ultra nash but ultranationalist and being threatened with death by the police i would say that in the aggregate that has to rise to the level of persecution on account of her religion and membership in a picture social group there the requisite degree of harm has been shown and to not find out i think you'd have to go against this court's findings  not the matter here here the petition was found to be entirely credible low had he had problems with her testimony and they said the found the fact that she went back also she just went back to go to two months and one month respectively because parents were ill did not constitute substantial evidence that the absence fear of persecution was not well founded well there's they came back to some bad stuff but here she was in great britain she was with her relatives her daughter and yet she left that nest several times how how do we say that the administrative law judge was clearly erroneous in making a finding that she didn't think she was being that the court has no where its aid to a family member both of the case i mentioned it was with parents they found that that was a reasonable reason to go back here the daughter in great britain their lawyer had told her your mother cannot overstate her visa and if it does it's it's going to be prejudicial to my attempts to legalize my status in this country so she she would come in the she would go back she would stay the amount time and then i don't know what the eck actual law in england whether in fact that's correct but what matters is that's what this mother believed and she thought that her presence was going to harm her daughter's ability to gain legal status to have her life in great britain or if her daughter was required to leave believe that she would be able to stay in great britain she believed that they would send her back and that's why she feared going there that's why she came here why is that different now than then now you know she feared her daughter wouldn't get to stay great britain a different reason is that but but but the discord is found that care for a family member concerns about their safety their well being in this case parents who are unable to care for themselves that can be a sufficient reason and that wouldn't be a if you know that the board tries to distinguish this case from bourse adonal saying that well in that case it was a mexican homosexual and stayed outside the country coming to united states several times and that was just to move in then going back but they said it was different there is like well that person demonstrated past persecution in the us the burden shifted to the government so if there's a fine in past persecution the fact that they returned doesn't doesn't wane as heavily represent the respond it attorney general jefferson sessions the third the petitioner in this case claims to have established past persecution and a well founded fear future persecution however in light of her testimony and relevant case  i guess i'm saying so you're familiar with the facts and critique of soon right yes i look at each of the incidents that happened about petitioner right in terms of the level of severity the frequency whatnot and then i compare them to the incidents that this  physically harmed she she was perhaps she was in the house too i'm just let me tell you the two most serious it seems to me she was in a house church at someone's house a mob surrounded the church they started throwing stones right i don't have enough i'm confusing more than one incident the police come and they say protect us and instead the police watch as the mob burns down the house that seems like a pretty serious  incident somebody could have been killed presumably in that i'm sure you would have been i would have been very frightened if we had been staying there and then when she was subjected to violence by her neighbors or other private citizens she goes to the police and says protect us these people have a farm being and the police said don't come back here if they don't kill you we will again those same i don't know i mean yeah the police didn't physically assault her but short of that i think we've got everything that occurred in testifying about that threat from the police she stated that that was how the police spoke to them so she she didn't testify to  were taking any real fear from the threat that it was just a hollow threat that i believe that's what her testimony indicates i think that they your opposition has focused upon the issue that i'm sure bothers all of us a religious intolerance is worldwide it happens all over all the time and it's something that we can all of us i'm sure oppose but unless the government does it it's not persecution you know the words we have a lot of people to discriminate but the government has to do it in order to give her rights here but here you do have the government doing some action that's the action of the police and the bothersome part about this case is whether  on several occasions where the police have acted they've acted in a way that is less than helpful to the situation generally and that is when the police begin discriminating then it looks more like the government is involved in the process now that's a good argument what's your response well the incident with the church being set on fire the police did not set fire it was the mob surrounding the church and and was suppose they come in they're just going to start the fire and the police are over applauding i don't think you have to have the police actually unable to control private citizens who are inflicting what would otherwise be persecution but that definitely satisfies the standard and that's it seems to me what happened here that i agree with you the best reading of the testimony is that the police want the ones who looked at the church on fire but they were standing there and the people were pleading with them to help and protect us and stop the police just watch the mob and stuff right in front of them get in the argument the government would argue that that's not the police and gauging and persecution against the petitioner they were in effect when they came to or when they responded to the petitioner scott they were unwilling to control a mob of private citizens who were terrorizing these churchgoers but i don't know what else how else to describe we held that was insufficient to show a connection there's a fine line someplace and what is your strongest case it is pursue are the best case for you or do you have a stronger case for the side of the government  that this does not amount to persecution  holder the petitioner was stripped naked by students he was spat upon threatened his mother was taken to a government clinic for severe injuries and they wouldn't treat her he was detained arrested he was beaten by a rioters and the court held that that did not constitute past persecution so the government would argue that establish past persecution and a well founded well founded fear future persecution the petitioner fails to satisfy her burden of proof for asylum she also failed to demonstrate that the record after that scope kills the conclusion that she would more quite distinguishable from halim beholder that's an indonesian case where this person the young man was discriminated against in school growing up and treated very badly during one period of civil unrest a mob assaulted him i was on his motorcycle took his helmet off and they saw that he was an ethnic chinese and the mob attacked him the police rescued him and that incident that's quite a different scenario then the way the police in the ukraine  situation where one person was single out yes and was actually beaten in jail but that under the process we sustained the board yes but here that that was you know an incidence of of police abuse but it wasn't it was not an ongoing thing for this individual he was subsequently released and here we have the police basically saying that you know to this person don't come around here will kill you and then when they come to you when they go to the they go to the church the mob actually waited for the police to arrive before they commit the arson because it was known that the police would actually be in favor of that crime i think it's a it's a higher level and i think it's also very consistent with the other case law that it mentioned especially