ok thank you i believe the primary questions i'm just peel past persecution and the future persecution started by the respondent in regards to the past persecution i would like to mention the two important cases that i would discords repeatedly hailed the end they don't distinguish between a principal applicant and a derivative and but instead the problem i think you have with past persecution is whether the acts which are republic of moldova between the ninety three and ninety nine this act alone says that the police or the government was not willing or able to control the forces or the people that trade that's a tricky one for me if the police based on the ground of discrimination and particularly jewish but maybe even outsider had done that this is clearly persecution y state employees in this court held that when the persecution actual is perpetrated by the government or the government involved in the persecution i mean the alcan should not have been filed the police report because claim from the government and you'll have a little more than two minutes to respond we think you think you under the regulations implementing the convention against torture and i'm not going to ask you also articulate clearly i'm sorry withholding of removal and protection under the regulations implementing the convention against against torture have been waived have not been raised in the briefs i don't think there are any longer on the table turning to the immigration judge's decision there are two key findings first no pas persecution and second assuming that the attack on the stand would constitute persecution for the whole family that that any presumption of future persecution would be rebutted by chan be considered the persecution of the attack on the sign she noted that it's not necessarily persecution because there's not there's not she's not convinced that you the government was certainly not the agent was not unable or unwilling to prevent the attack and i understand all that but i want to make sure i understood your answer to my question which is was the district judge was the immigration judge wrong in holding that are applying legal standard that because the boy is not the principal applicant his persecution or his ill treatment whatever it amounts to is discounted to some degree i  i believe that might be incorrect under the law this might me is what is wrong under under the law of this circuit it would it would it would be err it would be it is an incorrect statement of the law because the attack on the child was not perpetrated by government agents nor by groups the government was not willing to control i think the second portion councils stated that after the attack there was a police report the police to nothing and that also the treatment was at the hospital because the child was half ukrainian half jewish doesn't that sort of cut the other way on the question of whether the government was not willing to control well first of all it's your honor i believe that the evidence and the find the immigration judge is not that the police did nothing if they were unable to pass the perpetrators and as your own  alluded to earlier the mere fact that the police can't catch someone does not mean that they're unable or unwilling to prevent an attack are perfect are to stop the whoever's committed the the alleged persecution i can't remember her precise testimony on that you remember exactly what she said as to whether they said well we can't catch them or we don't care or maybe the new ones that will make some difference i think you know  who herself her husband her daughter and her boss had all been beaten specifically on account of their religion there was no there was no question that every harm suffered was specifically because  family were jewish here the alleged incidences of persecution can stem from a variety of motivations regarding her her ability to obtain transportation to the hospital for example seems to be the limitation just concluded that had as much to do with her inability to speak the language then any ethnicity are you saying the instances of persecution came from different sources exactly they're not from you are missing that there was persecution or discrimination the incidences of alleged discover alleged persecution your honor i do not believe that any individual  persecution persecution is extreme i don't think that these men these events necessarily certainly don't compel the conclusion that the petitioner was persecuted and more importantly you on the street it is it they come following the loss of power by the communist party the inst the rise to power of the nationalist party specifically her position at the at the ministry of the interior of as i believe it is called speech actually obtained this job through connections that her for her husband's family had with the communist party now the communist party is in power persecution or that any presumption of future persecution has been rebutted i think i think that the record in this case supports the immigration service decision it does not compel a contrary result and  persecution because as i say it's i said earlier that not only the petition is of non modern ethnicity she's a jewish descent and the persecution by the government or by people that the government cannot control