morning started that were late my fault i had a nightmarish experience with san francisco's one way no left turn it up way out just way somewhere and it was one of those dreams that you have where you have to take a final exam and you can't find the room it departure of her husband from jordan in one nine hundred ninety nine which included threats to make her pay a price and threats that she would be taught a lesson after years of rassmann and she was muslim brotherhood  subjected to that harm on the basis of similar conduct and that's the basis for her belief that that was the implications of that threat if she ever testify explicitly that the individuals who threatened her were from the muslim brotherhood but the immigration judge said she didn't start with her testimony yet did she ever that the group that the people who threatened her were from the muslim brotherhood i believe she did not state so that when the immigration judge says she never referred to that particular group that on the basis of his opinion he made a finding and assumption that that was the muslim brotherhood but nevertheless found that it wasn't grave enough to justify a grant to relieve some of the  advance that theory because i don't think that is a fact he did testify some of the disapproval of her shall we say more modern dress habits came from her family but there's no evidence of her family threaten however this preclusion for review applies only if the agency acted under that section and in this case did not do so specifically he did not consider whether my client's application well your honor it's interesting that point is interesting because she didn't actually testify to that you'll pay a price threat that threat was put placed only in her written application and during her testimony she never testified to a specific threat she never said somebody told me i'm going to pay a price is that the written statement part of the record the written statement is part of the record your honor but certainly if you testified inconsistently with that you w belief about this group there's really nothing in the record particularly in the country report that was entered there's nothing in the record that says really anything about this month's one group and what their particular tenets are and not mention of all  now so the only evidence of record is her description of the group exactly government offer any evidence to counter them but i don't believe so i think the government probably felt that her testimony was enough to  counter it in a sense because she didn't really testify to the tenets of the group the composition of the group how the group operates how the group punishes women there was really really nothing there other than the things that the muslim brotherhood yes and he accepted her description of her their past activities to the extent that she was able to describe them yes she did no mention of this group or groups like  in the country you know there is there is not your honor and in fact the country report seems to indicate that women enjoy just one thing the i j a founder credible right yes i just found quite a credible but she didn't meet her burden we're not contesting her credibility here but she said she saw things then she said that she heard things and so we wasn't really clear what she had actually witnessed she never just described in any sort of detail having actually physically seen something like this as opposed to having heard second hand or third hand or whatever about something like this having happened after use for forces i don't think that she did and your honor again i could check the decisions on this issue are fairly narrow in terms of threats alone not really being enough unless those threats are so severe that they actually put an alien in fear of their don't really think so your honor it's not enough to support a withholding claim she's got to show that it's more likely than not that she's going to be persecuted getting a dirty look on the street doesn't qualify what about  should be taught a lesson well again and to the extent that she even thought that was true or that that actually happened and she didn't testify to it she didn't specify what that lesson was going to be withholding and basically her entire complaint amounts to the fact that her personal choice not to wear your job was not respected to the degree that she wished it to be in short that complaint doesn't rise to a clear probability