back that there is substantial evidence for the proposition that they suffered discrimination but not persecution at the hands of the government why what happened to them persecution i think i can agree with the initial part of your your statement and also put the rest of it into context as the record reflects and as these two individuals in particular should be seen they have spent a lifelong they have a life long history of not having been educated of having been submissive by their very religion and by their very actions they're almost stoic they receive punishment without fighting back what we may call the case law does not require that you receive physical punishment in order to be persecuted and it's also clear that that there is a line that discrimination and lack of charity don't necessarily equate to ask you shot this has to be more awful than and in particular it has to be related somehow to the government and not to fellow citizens correct in that was the next point i was going to get to which is that while the record doesn't have any specific actions by the government other than actions by the police and not action by the police when they filed complaints and that type of thing there are also many references within the record to the acknowledgement by congress and them and the various studies within the record that acknowledge that even evangelical christians have been persecuted in the ukraine over the course designed to address that's the best i can i can do for the court in terms of the record that's before you is referred to the many references to the historical context as well as to the individuals like to quickly review just a few points with respect to the procedural history on the due process now the sisters came to the can to this country in one nine hundred ninety five the ins took action in december of  given time to get an attorney they could not find an attorney because they didn't have financial resources they had been given a continuance in order to find an attorney  in may of one thousand nine hundred seven a trial was ordered and scheduled for february third of one nine hundred ninety eight they finally got in with the immigrants rights project literally four days as i understand it according to the record before that hearing and they were able to start the trial of a at least had counsel and an interpreter and the trial started on february third at the end of that first day of the hearing the immigration judge noted that she had already determined that she was going to deny their petitions for asylum even though counsel for both sisters had indicated that there was additional evidence that turned out a substantial amount of documentarians evidence to be presented and one of the sisters haven't even testified as yet that was quite significant and as you look at the judge's decision which was issued on april thirtieth of that year at the on the second day of the of the trial it's pretty clear that what the judge had was what was done on february third what was submitted on february third what not much reference if any to any of the voluminous materials that were submitted on april twentieth which was ten days before the hearing as required  there's all there is only a minor notation to counsel's brief to counsel's legal argument but not to any of the documents not to any of the evidence that was submitted ten days before that hearing so also notable that that thirty plus page written decision was published the same day as the trial the ins indicates that there's no reference in the record to the judge having a predisposition i would point the court to see they are pages two forty nine and two fifty which is where  counsel for the petitioners indicated to the court the predisposition that or the reference to a decision having already been made and the court's acknowledgment of that position it's often the case that a judge will say here's how i'm thinking about this case as things stand now so if you want to persuade me you need to know how i'm thinking about it now is that improper i mean i have to say every day of the week and it seems to me that that's what happens in this record too to the extent that we can tell that the r j wish it was if anything just revealing thanking to the petitioners a lawyer so that additional arguments could be responsive to to those concerns what's wrong with that i don't know that there's anything necessarily wrong and it happens all the time that that judges indicate their line of thinking however in this case to state that i'm going to deny that there's an indication that the petitions are going to be denied before receipt of the documentary way the court is is stating it right now the the unfortunate thing in this particular record is that the discussion that you are referring to is not expressly stated in the record i can assume that possibly that was the nature of the why would that be a decision in your favor the record states that the the i j a indicated she was going to deny the petitions it doesn't say why i then goes on to again as i've indicated on april thirtieth the day when the trial was continued there's a thirty two page decision prepared even though that he and i i don't know whether it was prepared before or after there's a portion the one portion of that decision that refers to the hearing on the thirtieth is the small portion dealing with i believe marina's testimony the rest of that appears to have been and i can't identify that it was prepared in advance but the fact that it was published that day my name is robert love from the department of justice and i resent the respondent in this case in the first three cases this morning the attorney general in this case the immigration judge rejected the asylum claim of the protesters finding that the discrimination and harassment that they endured during the nine alternative holdings of the immigration judge are fully supported by substantial evidence and must be sayn first as to the future persecution based on the changed hockey conditions that's really dispositive in this case there's no need to address the department reports are to be given significant weight and not in all cases they are dispositive but here there is no evidence contradicting the state department report the point its own testimony can see that today they are free to practice without state page three seventy three and three seventy four administrative record is regarding russia not ukraine and the other item there are lines only to page three eighty six the administrative record doesn't even suggest persecution of pentecostals in ukraine  history to the law and virg amendment underscores the problem with the due process matter in this case congress recognized the problem and here in the ukraine directed the field representatives in europe to do what the i j a i assert failed to do in this case had the same standard been applied to these two sisters  we wouldn't be before this court today  the manner in which this matter was was conducted ignores the call of that amendment the record reads as if the i j did exactly what the field representatives in europe were instruct not to do by congress with respect to the assumptions that were made just as field representatives are under tremendous pressures to deal with the many folks that they they have seeking refugee status immigration judges have the same difficulties they're faced with many many folks coming before them with with language barriers with time pressures and all the rest of it that goes with that with with