the silent applicant fail to demonstrate the existence of persecution based on acts of violence perpetrated against them because the acts were isolated because they didn't result in serious physical injury well that is me ask you  the violence part perpetuated on the applicant to job was certainly more severe than the than the violence you see here i would say frankly that the the facts of blago are actually closer to the facts here in blanco you had a individual who was detained for approximately twelve hours and was beaten by the one hundred police so that i would see the facts there are probably closer than the facts and you know obviously the petitioner indo  that blago was not isolated incident because there were threats against that's true but the court said and i quote setting aside those threats the board failed to give proper w differences the government and the board didn't grapple with these cases the court forcefully rejected mechanical reliance in those cases on snippets of language from cases like bocce versus gonzales cabinda versus attorney general which characterizes acts of persecution is something less because they were one off or because the victims nots of physically injured that they require immediate medical attention but note the dead seem the you can see the theme as well in the cour the requirement there be physical injury physical violence well ok we took injury we took issue with that in dull but you know threats obviously don't involve medical injury and we made clear like the threats can be was a case in which there were multiple threats followed by a beating and those facts you know are much more intense and there's much more of a pattern there doesn't the lack of a corresponding death threat here means is said set aside  but i would say that if you if the court with a look at dell the court went through each of these items individually and determined that the border area in each of them the court st determined that the border area and in determining that this was an isolated incident therefore where there was no need for medical attention and therefore there was no persecution then the court also went on to it and have to do analysis of the threats as well so i think the court it indo as well as an want go was careful to separate out these these points obviously when they're blended together it creates an even more compelling case for persecution when you have intermittent escalating threats but when you look at them the court looked  individually as well as as well as together as the court as the court is and here it is required what about the the past persecution of i understand this correctly took place some fourteen years ago bank that into the equation know your honor you don't take that into the equation because under the regulation it's if the if the petitioner shows his persecution it's the government's burden to show that changes in the changes in the country have made that past persecution no longer old since the board in this case found no best persecution it never put the government to its burden which is why we which is why we put set forth in their brief that there should be a of the court for the board to make that determination  court looked at individually the issues of serious physical injury separate apart from threats it said as i said in blood get sick with setting aside the cords the boards miss misunderstanding that the threats in blanco were part and parcel of of the injury it said that the the board erred in making a determination that simply because the individual had been abducted and beaten but the beating wasn't severe because al individual who was a member of a political party he was an active member of the resistance to the governing party of honduras he participated in marches in fact that's where he was apparently abducted from was near a march as age has to be considered in turn in making the determination about whether persecution occurred incidents which may be which may not be persecution as perpetrated against an adult may well cross the threshold of persecution in terms of it in terms of when you're looking at a child the board mentioned the fact of chronological age but never really addressed it in analysis so we have a situation of what appears like happened in blago where there appears to be a difference between what the board said it was doing and what it was actually doing when it analyzed the expected to shooter's age the fact that it mentioned that he was under that he honor it did but but again what i want to point out again that the court was careful in that case well obviously the analysis cumulative and that's what horrendous as well as we're not supposed to take isolated incident separate apart response to put it all together but the court also wasn't saying that the that the thing that the the beating in abduction of blanco was not sufficient in itself because it said setting aside the threats  the setting aside those threats the board erred in its consideration of the physical injury and abduction and beating the bluntest suffered and that that we contend is the same issue obviously if there were additional is showing that to protect the ground was was not something incidental to the persecutor here the board determined that this was essentially an ordinary extortion case and therefore there is no nexus but the record compels the opposite conclusion in our view somewhat unique in this case is that here you have evidence directly from the persecutors now which shows their motivation they indicated that they were we don't have to guess what singled out and thirty two dollars there's some suggestion that it's because we're getting attacked because we're tamils but you say your claim is not that is because the temples it's because of political opinion and then it's a bar owner he was running a business as  doesn't compel a contrary reading you deny paying t n a the money so how's about political opinion as opposed to the next page goes on like it's business owners you're paying maybe this isn't just an attack for he while the e p d p may have been focusing on business owners who support the t n a the two are linked based on what they're based on their statement thirteen thousand one hundred and thirty two again there's some reference to t n a but it's also connected with your business owner and you're paying money so you're saying this has to be right is political opinion about the b i a rigid as your you're just paying parties when the p d p is is the manning supporters of the t n a paid paid he gave the money they don't necessarily i can see your argument that if the board had read that read it that way under our deferential review facts we might uphold that but this seems to lean the other way and it certainly isn't so clearly about political opinion they don't like our positions these two groups are or they want us to leave this party that it compels a country conclusion so really what you're depending on is that you know the board got got the standard wrong you know the one central reason you know which is which is the correct standard if they made a legal error this would be different but it's just the reading of the of the record you've got a really uphill battle i'm in canada and i don't dispute that obviously it's a deferential standard a substantial evidence to interview if the court concludes that the record supports the board's reading even if even if it believes my reading is better i will agree that a court that the court as to the contrary almost all how it how did the board get it right if it if it appears to have misread dollars holding i mean i guess this is joe did say that the board committed legal error by finding that a single beating without a severe physical injury to the petitioner was dispositive there but it was in the context of a case in which there were human  must be so severe that they constitute a real threat to life for freedom there there's a baseline that has to be met to show past persecution and it was petitioners burden to make that showing and here where he alleges that he was detained for two hours and struck in the head and abdomen he didn't need that baseline so while conclusion here but it's interesting as you say it's a question that's actually quite accurate that this is basically a quotation because i didn't put it in quotation marks and put it into the context of the cases a sloppy persecution again if petitioner bore the burden of showing him excess here he testified that he was targeted because quote because he was doing business is that i he changed his vote that he do anything other than what he was already doing except for give the e p d money as well and therefore he hasn't shown that it was anything more than a small a small factor in if if his political opinion was a factor all he had not met his burden of showing that was anything more than a small factor influencing their motives and has therefore not met his burden such that once again the record does not compel the reversal of the agency's denial of asylum and therefore withholding of removal which of course is a higher burden of proof where he didn't show the well founded fear and because that is fatal to his claim the court need not get in to address any other basis for finding he failed to meet the we knowledging his age and taking that into consideration the harm that was alleged to having been detained for two hours and his struck was still not sufficient to meet that baseline for persecution it when you're sixteen you're on or whether somebody a set of facts that we don't have here could possibly not needed it twenty one but needed it sixteen isn't the case that's not what we have here and so what we have here is the agency looking at what the petitioner put forward given his burden of proof and finding that even though he was sixteen at the time he still did not meet his burden of proof and there's nothing in the record compel the reversal of that conclusion there's no evidence of ongoing  it's a couple brief points if one looks at delgado and one looks at blago yes those are cases in which the real threats yes there's a key piece in which the court ultimately analyzed the chemo that the effect of those threats combined with the physical mistreatment but i want to point out that in both joe and blanca the court was careful to identify that the physical mistreatment that the board of error in determining that a single incident of physical mistreatment in which there  commander like my can but we term at the bank time right not depend on the back of course your honor of course but i would say if you look at the board's decision here the board would if you look at the that this is a single incident there was no physical injury therefore it's not persecution and that could be that could be correct right depending on the case certainly certainly your honor the fact that the any any incident could or cannot be persecution based on this specific facts against the point i'm making is that the court made a leap is that the board engaged in the same legal or in determining a cut off and saying this is a single then went on to analyze the court's errors in determining that there had been no physical injury and therefore the persecution because because the individual had been able to escape because the individual had been able to dollar much more egregious but the fact that the facts are different doesn't change the fact that the board applied the wrong legal standard and again i think this case is actually pretty comparable to blanco notwithstanding the fact there were threats of blanket but again right folks have a great rest of your day