your honor summit pleased to court i'm robert g ryan crowe the petitioner's i guess you can just say long well long it's yes your honor indeed we can all sail are all chinese christian conservatively and in the sense that along with seemed to indicate that one could simply be a member of those particular just favorite subgroups and receive asylum immigration persecution in that case would be enough to establish a silent future persecution question that's correct your honor just on that particular point one can show pastors accused in that then shifts the burden to the government to show that conditions are not so dangerous now that the person could return safely to indonesia but we don't need in most cases go out i'd say at least ninety percent of all asylum cases go out on a well founded fear of future destruction without a finding a pass for security we think there is past persecution this case but certainly the the  immigration judge in this case will be i could certainly find from the evidence in this case that she's established a well founded fear of future persecution without any finding of past persecution koreans in los angeles that as some groups of customers freedom like that the difference would be that the authorities do not condone it was there evidence that the authorities don mistreatment of christians well your honor at a minimum there is compelling evidence in the record that the authorities even at the air were willing are unable to protect the ethnic chinese if i may just go back for one moment to this question of continuing problems that she had until the time she left this going back to the shoplifting inciden when she was asked did the need of a nuisance ever stop shoplifting in the store before you left indonesia she replied no they didn't mr record one hundred two one hundred one now with respect to protecting the chinese your honor the authorities haven't prosecuted anyone for the anti chinese and one thousand nine hundred ninety eight riots that speaks volumes we believe with respect to whether the authorities are willing to protect them with respect to religious violence the country report stated for the two thousand country court stated that religious violence i'm quoting now religious violence and the lack of an affective government response to punish perpetrators and prevent further attacks allegations that officials were complicit in some of the incidents or in a minimum allowed them to occur to occur with im ministry to record it for sixty two so there is overwhelming evidence in the record that the authorities are going to protect the chinese there is an official state sanctioned discrimination against the ethnic chinese which we as a sport to condemn some of it is just that if primitive action planned for the native in the nations like assuring that they get a certain number of spots in the universities that sort of thing in essence identify them as at the chinese and then what happens is that shake them down for more money what i'm trying to find out about is if we leave long out of the picture the mandate is not issued it's still subject to a possible  all if we leave low long out what moves this up from a well founded fear of discrimination which does not provide for asylum and it is it's almost not in this record expert testimony or whatever that were along the board didn't have a chance to look at that stuff because i want him out after the board's decision so therefore if the court's going to rest its finding on those factual of each of those groups whether you agree with long or not you have to agree that the facts in this case are certainly stronger in terms of claim o christians obviously some of those are chinese as well as there's there's basically fighting between the muslims in the christians and other and other religious groups  you if you show a pattern practice and you don't have to provide evidence that you would we think that the individual the single singled out individually for persecution so but if you don't show a pattern pastors then you do under the regulation have to show that the person  university professor in cambodia or if you don't meet that michael then it's an individualized determination and there's kind of no halfway are unsafe that you still have to shout that you would be sh that you would be singled out now i guess this court has held that and i think there is a i think there is a i haven't cited it i don't think it's in the briefs so you may not want me to say this i think it's a third circuit case respect to the shop during the may night you know it's the record shows that the need of the nation writers shouted destroyed the chinese destroyed the store ministry to record ninety eight they knew it was a chinese store and they repeatedly went in there and shoplift it and there were threats that were made repeatedly and that happened until she left so the idea that something happened two and a half years before they left that's just is not square with the record with respect to his injury when he was struck on the nose he bled he went to the hospital  medical treatment that's physical violence with respect to head on or practice we think that the court you consider the fact that the derivative