names all the time he gets called to see him a denigrating way well that may be evidence that other conduct is persecution of the other conduct rises to the level of persecution and that it's motivated by his ethnicity but by itself it isn't persecution in fact it was the first well yes because i was just no matter what ethnic group means with nasty references to our ethnicity then you've got the soccer game rocks are thrown from here's a section of the stands the cops bring with the guys from that section of the stands into a room at the soccer stadium and they holler at them and yell at them for a while and then when the soccer game is over they  they were supposedly investigating at that time were that rocks have been thrown on the soccer field and hadn't actually injured or made contact with anyone but my point on the nexus issue in this case the judge did make a finding that  immigration judge entirely discounted is that these encounters with police were pretextual in nature they weren't investigated you know the soccer game is extra because he's a gypsy and not because rocks are being thrown from that part of the stands made the observation the rocks didn't hit anyone but i didn't get why that was important if you have a soccer player out there rather not have rocks thrown at them whether they had a missile well because again the the simple encounter with at the soccer field with authorities cannot be viewed in isolation it has to be viewed in the context in a case like this where mr barish makes a claim of pretextual harassment by the authorities gypsies they seem to have problems over history getting along with a lot of their ethnic group but how do we know that the soccer game was because they were gypsies and not because a rock from their area the stance because again that incident has to be viewed in context not only with that substantial evidence and  his ethnicity and that particular instance his encounters with the authorities i think these two have to be viewed together and again as part of this larger pattern of abuse when harassment on the basis  evidence supports that and the immigration judge here completely ignore that evidence in rendering her decision and she discounted these two incidents with the armenian as already has just a simple criminal investigations in so doing she assessing a prejudiced in this case despite that will withdraw the argument that there was prejudiced in regards to exclusion of the experts testimony but in regards to the exclusion of his son's testimony we believe that the immigration judge again committed  conditioning presentation of his son's testimony on the waiver of his right to confidentiality there's just no legal authority either in the immigration statute or in federal regulations to support that and mike does see that my time is up are first whether or not the experiences that mr perez taught in romania rise to the level of persecution second whether or not those encounters on account of his ethnicity the fact that he has changed all or  that he'd be tortured if he sent back that finding necessitates can't relief so i don't see how you can justify not remembering on the count relief at least for clarification ask you about something else well let me ask you about something you know about just i know this is going to come up we have to beatings and we have some remarks about him being a gypsy why doesn't that show a well founded fear of persecution that the government will engage in as opposed to preventing because  indication that there was any other mention whatsoever summary of the testimony and they both agreed to it and he hasn't challenged it or here are these four officers with one party has the burden the legal requirement to produce the transcript and they failed to do so the last point where we soon got the production of the transcript would produce evidence contrary to that person's position  there is no consequence we work with the record that we have he agreed to this record he's not challenging it now he's not alleging a due process violation so we take what the immigration judge gave us which is a summary and along with his affidavit everything that she could in the sense of saying to the parties do you feel that this is necessary why she did not have another hearing i would speculate from having read the transcript it's because no one seemed to have a problem with her summary of the testimony childhood or as a military hazing or difficulty finding a job all of that is in the summaries so the fact that it's in the summary we must assume that the immigration judge took it into account based on the fact that we assume that government discrimination growing up but he finished secondary school he went on to join the military he went through some hazing in the military but he made it through the military he went on to get a job from one thousand nine hundred seventy eight until nine hundred ninety seven the only encounter he had was occasionally at the bread line people would call out gypsy one time he was rough house by two individuals but that's for twenty years that is all that the only encounter that he had many as two instances with the both in conjunction with criminal investigations and only one time was the fact that he was a gypsy brought us we can look at which is the case that was pointed to by the immigration where we have an individual who was taken to a police station and placed in jail hit in the stomach and take from behind detained for four to six hours and interrogated about his political allegiances and released and this court found that the record did not compel that conclusion contrary to that of the board that this person had suffered past persecution it was a short detainment it was no medical treatment was required both of those in both instances here that's the case we have those detainees both times he was detained  never required any medical treatment he never missed a day from work he never lost his job he didn't get reported to the police no he didn't report it to the police but that probably would not have been a requirement in this case since the police were the ones that were  prevents it from affirming the decision of the board then the answer would be to remain and to allow the board to allow the immigration judge to clarify the statement and to clarify your honor again your honor because we presume that government officials do their duty in good faith all i'm talking about there is no transcript i mean it's one thing if you have a problem i ha was addressing the question of how do we know if that's what she said that day we know that's what she said that day because the transcript that was being taken that day now if there's a word missing there are mistakes that are made in transcripts and again we don't feel