battle had been thrown into their home you know ignited the fire and they all could have died once again the judge did not say that he did not believe the respondent known they ju wife got here here illegally she she was able to obtain us and she had filed for asylum however it was not i believe timely filed but once again she consistent and i believe that this court had made his mind in the past that due to the nature of their translation and the airports may please the court my name is thankful vander starr i represent the attorney general of the united states let me respond and try to clear up the confusion there are actually three bases for the denial of asylum in this case number one that there was no past persecution because what the petition er and his family experienced was discrimination and particular did not rise to the level persecution number two they do not have a well founded fear of future persecution for several reasons primarily that what we're talking about here is discrimination and not persecution and finally in the actual size of the immigration judge's discretion based on there was a denial of the salem based on the presentation of a fraudulent passport as well as the circumstances surrounding how the petitioners family came to the united states so the issue regarding the passport only goes to the discretionary denial of  focus first on the question of whether or not there was past persecution whether or not there's a well founded fear of future persecution because this case really turns on the question of whether or not we're talking about harm that rises to the level of ineligibility here the record substantial evidence in the record supports the immigration judges conclusion that what we're looking at here is discrimination there were only a incident that involves anything that will harm that came to anyone and that was when the police allegedly had the petitioner when he went to complain about the discrimination that his family was facing there himself did not come until april of two thousand and two i would like to also point out to the court that from the time the petitioners wife and one son left in one thousand nine hundred nine him self admits that he had no problems in armenia experience no more incidents of the kind that he testified to furthermore the state department documents submitted on the record support t conclusion that number one we're talking about discrimination albeit systemic but discrimination on the last and that in fact armenia is making efforts to try to overcome this armenia instituted a program to extend citizenship to refugee there was a there were approximately five years of outreach programs sponsor to assimilate refugees  and the state department documents both say specifically that what people of mixed ethnicity face in armenia is societal discrimination and not government persecution or even government discrimination the record certainly does not therefore compel the conclusion that the petitioner suffered either past persecution or has a well founded fear of future persecution turning to discretionary denial just court reviews that for an abuse of discretion and all of the factors that went into the immigration judges rendering that determination should lead this court to affirm that finding as well the immigration judge based the discretionary denial on not just the fact that the petitioner came with a fraudulent passport and tried to enter the united states by committing fraud but also that his wife and children came to the united states or at least to remain in the united states illegally circumventing orderly refugee procedures there is no evidence in the record that i'm aware of that the petitioner in fact sought visas for times the only reference that i i'd also like to just point now with regard to the issue of the airport translation as well as the fact that the west testimony is not in the record that those issues both both been waived by the petitioner and they were neither raised to the board nor