your honor the evidence in the record compels the conclusion that mr dollar john is a well founded fear of future persecution in armenia mr doc out testimony which must be accepted and true for purposes of evaluating his petition political activity there after he was beaten for three days detained for months and deprived of food and water during the first three days of being as a result of it here part medical treatment  down the can and then to reopen then reopen yesterday continued to operate until he decided to sell it to a close it's unclear exactly why he shut down the mechanic shop there is there was a back and forth about that with the government in the reply brief it appeared that mr datta may have shut down his mechanic's shop for several reasons possibly because he was planning on growing the political party and becoming more active in the political party he also says that there were business related issues for shutting down the shop but then he goes on to state that the economy was not going bad there's no bankruptcy in armenia and the shop was doing fine so it's unclear why should the mechanic shop but what is clear is that in one thousand nine hundred nine things got much worse for and the leader of his political party was assassinated in march of that year then his fellow party members organized a rally to protest that fascination the police descended upon them the demonstrators arrested several demonstrators and in fact struck mr dobson with a baton and attempted to arrest him and it was only after this incident that he hid out for two weeks and ultimately fled armenia you could say the record supports the conclusion that he was singled out for beating during that demonstration well the record does indicate that authorities attempted to arrest him at that demonstration and in fact attempted continues to be interested in him when he hid out for two weeks and in fact the testimony shows that even after mr dokken fled armenia authorities had a continued interest in mr downtown they inquired into his whereabouts with his parents and that was according to is testimony one week before the immigration hearing in addition your honour's there's testimony in the record that not only was mr donahue on targeted by me authorities but fellow party members those who are similarly situated to him were persecuted in armenia as i mentioned the leader of his political party with assassinated and his fellow party members or arrested and tortured under the law the circuit that whereabouts with his parents case involves a person who is obviously an opponent of the regime who are media correct your honor even the political opposition director on and you could expect that they would give him some something of a hard time that was that that's normal at what point does political opposition rise or dealing with the regimes dealing with political o persecution it seems to me that what you're describing is what you might expect the government like the armenian government to do to control the opposition it's unpleasant and we wouldn't approve of it but it's really persecution what makes the persecution well it is perfect using your honor when the repression of the political party and tales three days of beating denying food and water to mr dodgy and detaining him for a month that was that was a consequence of his being caught painting graffiti on the wall if that was the consequence of him being arrested for his political speech the record did not indicate in the b i did not rely on the fact that there was that he was arrested based on anything other than political speech furthermore all right painting on the wall well he states posting messages on walls but it's unclear from the test when exactly what he was doing he does testify that it was common in armenia to post messages on walls and the people commonly did it he states that he was arrested because of his political activities he said during the interrogation he was making in fact a test by the to a political statement during the interrogation and police authorities continued to beat him during that time and is applied in a discriminatory manner towards a protected class and applied in a manner that entails persecution of individual did not insulate that activity we cited in the economic he emigrated for economic benefit i what i was focusing on is in the middle of page three of the administrative record the second the first full paragraph that of the response description of his finding as i read this that their questioning that whatever occurred was on account of and i don't usually usually has a question about the on account of prong it merits a separate discussion well as i understand it opinions do tend to be brave but i think that the record does support that when i look at the record it was clear to me that that this is an individual who claimed that he decided to emigrate credible or even if you do them your honor the testimony was i didn't fear persecution until a week after i decided to close my business for purposes of emigration he had his own testimony supports established is that he decided to leave armenia because of business problems not because of any fear of persecution he said he did not fear any persecution until a week later when he went to this rally which where he was which is broken up by the police but he was not arrested talking about now is his testimony and that the subject of testimony and object of indications about the well founded fear of future persecution what i'm focusing on is the past persecution i don't see any finding in there that there's anything in the past they question about that has to do with the whether or not his whatever he experienced was on account of the numerator ground and there was it didn't seem likely a reach your considered or or question the fact that whatever  different conclusions but my home in the case is if we just if we focus the way our case law does on what happened i mean so he has these the beating in prison after the demonstration he spent some time in prison and then the question of the focus of the opinion is whether or not that rises to the level of what's termed persecution so explain to me why you don't think that needs persecution under our case law because you you seem to be i think heading into an area that you don't perhaps need where there was a one one episode of beating and couple with some other acts of persecution so you have i think the three days of being probably rises a little persecution or case like he's jailed for a month after that without food and water because we except as case back to the book of a case in the first circuit i realize it's a first rate case but the allies standard set forth by the supreme court asked us to consider whether any reasonable adjudicator any reasonable court would have to find a finding of persecution i think in a clearly i can understand that you might find persecution on this record but the question is not whether you could whether you have to do it whether there's just no way you couldn't find it and well as the hit let me say the crux of the analysis for me to speaking as one judge is this it seems to me that what happened a nationally is enough for me so that i would say oh you simple judge shouldn't find path shouldn't not participants in the rally he doesn't say that it actually happened he said that he thought it might happen say that they did this this idea that they were tortured this is actually speculation on his part and to the extent that he heard it from somewhere it's not in the record but it but the good case that which we cited in our twenty a j letter stands for the some other group supposedly he was just a regular member of this group i don't know that we can budget together different types of incidents by different groups i don't know that the case was the ports that the t that there are points in this record that could in isolation support a finding of persecution but again this case turns on the standard of review it's interview is whether it's compelling such that any reasonable judge in any reasonable  find persecution i ask that you read the record carefully and as a whole rather than focus on an isolated meeting three years before this gentleman decided to emigrate thank you let me ask you to leave but i have a follow up question for you and i realize you but if you can answer this i'd appreciate it assuming that we determined that the three days of beatings was sufficient to show past persecution but we have a question about the significance of that quiet three years afterwards or relatively quiet three years is that an issue that has to be remade added to the as i read the b a s opinion it periods of time after an alleged beating you do not with respect answer them say that i mean the problem is that you are you have a different argument and the b i relied on it doesn't say in the b i pinion that we are there was past persecution but it but the three year period trumps that it just silent on that there is that there is the text sensi you talk about saying nothing happened to him as he was taking care of business and then they pools question is and we will look at it carefully don't worry about that but the but the judge schools question is if we find past persecution and if we conclude that the b i has an address that does in your judgment remain and require going on you mean as opposed to you page decision and it doesn't cover all the things we've talked about today they don't get into every issue but i think i think it's broad enough that you could read ok thank you put three minutes on that period second of all in one thousand nine hundred nine he was threatened with arrest and after that period after he fled the country there the continued interest in his whereabouts this court has stated in the lim case that a post threat therefore this independently demonstrates a well founded fear of future persecution i also want to address the point about the assassination of dr who vanished in council suggested that this was not done armenian government however under the law the circuit if an act and act of persecution is committed by a group of the government unable or unwilling to control it can be attributed to the government the record shows that the fifteen group was a group a r two thirty one of the record the state department state that robert co chairing was the president of armenia the third point i want to address is the glue opinion i want to know first that the mandate is not issued on do and it appears that on bond proceedings maybe going on with two second of all the facts and who are entirely in ap you involved a an episode that lasted for maybe a few hours then the petitioner had no further contact with the police and police in fact exhibited no continuing interest in the petition