have to virtually identical cases the attorney general has a compelling interest to engage in consistent decision making in this instance the judges were in the same  there's not enough evidence to change the result of the first immigration judge that the attorney general does have a compelling interest in making sure that there's consistent decision office is normally the first level review so if the asylum officer making disparate decisions on virtually identical cases one would be able to raise that issue there as well we cite  was whether to virtually identical applications for state of the importation could be decided differently and the central district ruled that they could not and that in fact the district director had abused targeted and that constitutes a sufficient enough and in practice that qualifies for asylum i would argue that this is not and secondly at this level whether or not the record compels us to find and argue that it is not we also know court has that has to be spun application to the individual and she does not make any allegations that all this as you know well this happened to me in this way  what you want to go back there and it's making progress but it has a long way to girl certainly and no is making the argument that again this is an ideal spot and certainly not arguing that everything is it's paradise it's funny and wonderful but the question isn't whether or not it is as good or as nice or whatever term you choose to use the united states the question is does it right there is the question is h making an argument that i know what you're saying about the past persecution and all that but can you really argue that she has no reasonable going to be some ethnic conflict in indonesia i would argue that in this record it is not as strong as in other records and not looking at other records i would also argue that while i i can't make any assertion that she would not be harassed under any circumstances but but not the kynge can the other side make that she would not be a rast ever the question is not whether or not she would think any instance of any harassment whatsoever doesn't rise to that level the question is whether or not it rises to the level that warrants a sound so i'm not suggesting that it is an ideal a wonderful country that she would never face any type of harassment on any level ever but i don't think that's the relevant question before the court whether or not she would have some ideal condition to go back to several distinctions and in this case it is not one where petitioner can argue they are virtually identical and therefore warrants the same we both agree with you when we say they are virtually identical what's your response to the argument that if they're virtually even if that were true which we flew famous not we would argue that it still does not necessarily warrant a similar outcome there are in looking at extremes there may be cases where for example clearly mandated because the fascists overwhelming or some extremes where they were clearly isn't and then there's another area in which one would have to examine the issues and one would and because the administrators judges were there it's not clear what was there during the testimony ho presented that it is not appropriate to them that a reasonable fact finder can look at the circumstances and perhaps come to different conclusions and that is only at this stage whether or not the f at a minimum there are certainly similar situations and to the extent that i have used clean reinforces the fact that they are similarly situated in this pattern of practice evidence which