ate group doctrine it is a fundamental principle upon which this court relies not just this court but every court the supreme court every federal court that in reviewing an agency determination this court is limited t set forth by the agency itself and the decision under review in this case the immigration judge granted asylum and the board of immigration appeals reversed concluding that she had heard in finding that there's a long had a else going to happen first before the immigration judge will some sort of pro forma warner be entered as a result of the b i e s decision for form as long as actually before in our view not not in your view i'd like to know what the practice is high soon you've had other cases was that the i a e a has entered a similar order of what happened under the current legal regime where malina camacho governs what's been happening is many of these clients have been in legal doesn't show up or send a bag and baggage letter or show up at the door and say you know we're taking you to the airport your planes about ready to depart my experience on that particular things are very limited you're right and i can't really say whether their normal practice is but i have not seen that i have not seen a actually is going to happen to this individual about she's here without work authorization without the ability to work without the ability to get the about her asylum application reviewed by any federal court so she's here but she's here without any real legal asian and when in every case there's always going to be a finding of the portability if you're moving on to that phase concerning relief and when the immigration judge grants relief there's never going to be an order of deportation but when these cases go up to the board if the board revers deportable at all she made an offer in a finding to portability the board entered that finding in the first instance of the board is without legal authority to do that so annoying to lopez i would say there was no final or the decision was correct there's a huge issue there about how to remedy that but that's much different case from this one you know if i understand the cases it's not just the second circuit that would take a position contrary to come on show by i think the fast eight first eleventh so there's no starker that has held what we held in camacho is that correct and the fifth circuit has actually drawn the exact same distinction that i'm trying to draw here and i think the fifth circuit would agree with this court's decision demonstrated a general commitment to freedom of religion and that this is the critical thing this is on page three really what the board's decision turns on is whether the government of indonesia is at this time unable or unwilling to protect people like  occur is a sufficient basis to conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that the response would be persecuted she must return to indonesia comma in the absence of evidence that the indonesian government is unwilling or unable to control the may be other bases that the board could have offered here i mean there's certainly an issue about relocation it's certainly an issue here about you know the mathematically the probability of harm but there's absolutely no real issue about the government's to asylum in the united states could you explain why that would not be so well i'm not that should be so as a threshold matter i'm not suggesting that you leave the panel's decision in place i'm suggesting that the first if i could just pull up the decision the first part of the panel's analysis i guess that would be  the section that deals with disfavor group analysis i don't disagree with their analysis in that particular section of the opinion i think it's irrelevant because the discussion there has nothing to do the decision that the particular question your honor that the court could reverse but it's probably more prudent under thomas if i could just walk real briefly through the evidence here on this is an inability to protect because in our view it's overwhelming and when the board said that there's an absence of evidence on its head it was overwhelming several times now and i didn't read it that way so tell  it your honor let's start with page eleven twelve of the administrative record this is an article from january of two thousand that documents ongoing attacks in various parts of the country my point it's not a provincial town it's one of the major islands in indonesia but your honor in characterizing it that way i really think that you discount the historical record in this case i think it's important there's an absence of evidence this court's role rather than dictate the decision should be to say look there is evidence here's what that evidence is you didn't consider that you need to consider it and really hand it back  when with words and people can say absence of evidence when they mean there's no evidence whatsoever or when they mean the evidence i you agree that there's some ambiguity there and if you four christian churches were destroyed february of one thousand nine hundred eight and this is before the riots that everybody talks about the mayor writes february of one thousand nine hundred eight human rights watch reported quote over the last two months violence against ethnic chinese as a rutted across the country this is something that you don't even read about because it wasn't they met the massive writing that occurred three months later human rights reports goes on to say after a series of our place in java which is where missile launches from the unrest had by mid february hit the islands  christian chinese woman who hails from indonesia need only show this and she is entitled to asylum in the united states the board never addressed that question your honor but isn't that the logical conclusion  essentially to do more than simply of eighteen and remain under events where you want us to be in that's the term a nation with express conclusions as to what we think the country conditions evidence shows i'm having a very hard time answering in my own mind just kleinfeld question of where do we draw the line are we just throwing the door open to anybody who hails from indonesia who happens to be christian and chinese i understand that but again that's not the issue presented by this case because the board's decision as i read it presents a very narrow question and that narrow question is addressed in the second part of the panel's analysis and i would embrace that part of the panel's analysis fully thirty nine good argument to add the government doesn't have to have picked out this particular fellow in order to have a high likelihood that they're going to murder him if they catch him know forty years later like between the riots in the sixty's and when we were litigating germany in one thousand nine hundred five know and know even though there continue continuing anti semitic incidents from time to government there are going to be a day there are going to be countries where anyone in a group without any individual is a fish and that's going to be threatened i've wondered a little bit from time to time about east indians and  ethnicity right i take it what you're trying to do is have the board engage in this dialogue rather than having a dialogue with us in san francisco you like the board to look at the historical evidence to tell us and your client maybe because they feel she hasn't made enough of an individual is showing your concern is they seem to ignore the historical evidence that does show a history of persecution of both christians and of ethnic chinese and against that background you would like an individualized attention paid to her taste by the board right so where do you have your word that what i'm saying your honor is basic charity i'm saying that under generally this court reviews the fisher was talking entirely about history and that's fine but the question here is well founded fear future persecution so we've got to focus on the nine hundred sixty five and on two thousand and six or whenever this decision  down and and that was the heart of the b o h conclusion that despite the historical record he condemned growing calls for a holy war against christian minority but says he's quote seemingly powerless to prevent the violence from escalating on page three hundred five three ninety six of the administrative record this describes president why he has been dismissed from power our expert the fighting but for actively participating in the fighting the state department report this is on page six forty three of the administrative record it says although president wahid definitely is the kind of person that wants to do something about this it goes on it says lower level officials continue to show reluctance to facilitate and protect the rights of religious minorities attacks against minority houses of worship and the lack of an affective government response to punish the perpetrators of prevent further attacks unable it's always been unable to contain it in any stuff and where is the evidence that your client will be subject to the episodic as opposed to others again you're out of that particular issue about whether there's a pattern in practice we raised it at the board they didn't morning your honour's i may have please the court jonathan cohn for the respondent your honour's there is substantial evidence in the record that the government of indonesia was able and willing to control the violence in addition to their response in may two thousand and judge reimer mentioned you also have the response in april of two thousand and august of two thousand there are concerns then of violence on the streets so what the government did was immobilized tens of thousands of troops and that worked it quell the violence the streets require i direct runners attention to pages nine ninety five sixty one and five ninety eight of the record after that in the year two thousand there were still some sporadic incidents of violence but there certainly was not so much violence and there's a pattern or practice of persecution and there wasn't a reasonable fear of persecution further my opposing counsel mention that president wahid was impeached that happened in july of two thousand and right direction violence continued to drop and discrimination continued to drop even regions like move wait a minute we're not supposed to consider what's the point of elaborating not only because mr jope raised it but i agree with your honor and think what he was saying  was reading the record as was for the board with respect to our he didn't he mention the impeachment which happened in july of two thousand and one the record closing of ember a few times what you just said an additional reason to send it back to the board and let them consider the whole record clothing fresh country reports and fresh fresh evidence of what the government is or is not doing absolutely not your honor the country conditions have the words you want us to consider the evidence but no your honor they not consider that evidence respect your honor as judge kleinfeld mentioned the better way of reading that sentence is that the preponderance of the evidence is the government is able and willing to control the violence the board recognize there was some violence but on the whole the government was a and willing to hold the violence was in certain regions the point the board pointed out and that violence did not give rise to a well founded fear of persecution so when the board says there is no evidence we should read that to say that  of evidence supports their decision they said the absence of evidence and i think a better way to use the words no evidence they said the absence of evidence drawn or so we read the absence of evidence to mean preponderance correct your honor in light of the context the overall context the board's opinion and agencies of course are presumed to follow the law and there's no reason to think they just ignored the evidence that was contrary to their opinion the better reading of that is a look at the entire record and simply concluded as they should have that on the whole the government was able and i would say it's ok especially when the context of the page in the board opinion as a whole reveals the board consider that evidence the very board opinion on page two and three of the record consider the very evidence they mention there was some violence in certain regions of the country honor and it was very interesting as mr jope is now saying the court should ignore the dispute of the past should not inquire into pattern practice and should instead look only at the ability and willingness to control the violence has breached this court panel but i mean what i think mr jope saying today i don't think you disagree with that if we were to construe absence to mean absence that you would if we talked in that construction you would like to have the board of the first crack at it rather than issue in the same way this briefing that he briefed to the board did not distinguish between pattern practice claims and singled out claims it just said there's a well founded fear in the board addressed to the same way they essentially cover both pattern practice and singled out without with that i would agree they should not read them though because the board's decision should be sustained in the board's terms but i also want to point out that mr jope supplemental brief to this court actually argues pattern or practice it mentions code has it argues all the things  raises a very interesting point the language that he cites to was not well written by granting that that sentence says that the that the order is vacated but the board vacated the i g f decision for the simple alien shall be removed is not the part voluntarily of course an alien can't be removed unless he's remove a ball so in that sense i think on the whole of a better way of reading and i grant you it's not well written judged as a very good point i think on the whole is low long conceded that she's removable there's no issue in this case she's removable so the i guess finding was based upon a concession so based on that point you and mr job are in agreement absolutely your honor and and reach the same result a little more gracefully yet the v a decision says the respondent is permitted to voluntarily depart and then it says bottom of the  sensually two issues which are two sides of the same coin there's the ability and willingness to control would be addressed already and the other side of the coin is is there sufficient violence to give rise to the persecution and mr jope argument up until about half an hour ago was there is sufficient violence to give rise to persecution that is incorrect your honour's the government would like to make three points on this number one ms long has not presented any evidence let alone compelling evidence that is more susceptible to persecution than any other chinese christian woman there's no heightened risk unique to her second because there's no heightened risk unique to her or her claim rises or falls based upon the overall group risk for chinese christian women and under the regulations the only group based asked if it had a practice test third she has failed to meet the standards of the pattern or practice test and again that's the only test  government's soon to sunni got to fallujah what with respect drawn or entirely depends upon what the record shows how i would not want to get ahead of the board based upon a record that doesn't exist but that's entirely can different conditions but we don't have the government on that theory i think i did the answer would come down to the second point that i mentioned is there a pattern or practice and there very well might be iran or influenza but there's not a pattern or practice of persecution of chinese christian women in indonesia again the first point is a heightened risk for ms lo long in particular the answer clearly is no there's nothing in this record that suggests that she in particular is more likely to be persecuted than any other chinese christian woman she mentions random acts of crime and to tell where the question is coming i mean we have to raise our hand is that the government's position that the ending war should overturn molina camacho absolutely your honor not when i ask you that question and the one i asked before about second question is has she made out the requisite group risk and to do that she has to satisfy the pattern or practice test which has two components under the regulations the first is she has to show a pattern or practice of persecution of her group god bless you your honor the third circuit reached this very issue and agreed the eighth circuit agreed the board agreed am and the first in ten circuits recently denied asylum claims by chinese christian women in the media there is no pattern or practice of are different from the conditions in jakarta in jakarta vast the capital of the country it makes sense that a government is better able to control the violence in its own capital then the far flung regions of the archipelago of seventeen thousand i'm probably one might need it after this your honor if not with respect or honor in jakarta there wasn't a pattern or practice of persecution we saw the government's response in april of two thousand and they have two thousand of august of two thousand and mobilizing tens of thousands of troops to quell the violence maluco was difference to a waste he was different and for that reason the fifth circuit case that mr joe mentioned in this brief is distinguishable that dealt aliens from sulawesi and the fifth circuit recognized perhaps in big us but they on the whole recognized that the conditions vary and that's why they remained it for relocation analysis which makes sense only if the conditions vary and missile long's own expert recognize the conditions vary on page one as the state department notes on page sixty sixty two of the record there was a sharp decline of violence sharp decline in violence conditions were getting better there wasn't a pattern or practice of persecution this course should join the first  sale you don't have to but you should this case is distinguishable from sale and still there was an argument that there was some minimal individualized risk very little but as a technical matter the court doesn't have to reach cell but it certainly should because first of all does not have any heightened risk and so her claim stands or falls based upon a group arrest and the only group risk test in the regulations that have her practice there is no distribute group test your honor and it should be rejected and this is a perfect opportunity to do country they clearly recognized the government was not a limiting all vile there was some but on the whole they recognized that the government was able to control the violence it's not to me that you know you know mr gelb are in agreement on the jurisdiction but now you're about as far as parties you could be he wants to say this client and you are going on like save the law and this seems to me a different argument than i thought you were making when you came in and i thought you were making arguments perspective if i understand you now you want us to raised by ms lo on the opinion would have to address a pattern or practice would have to address diskeeper group i'm not saying wait a treatise but just with respect your honor addressed squarely the issues they're squarely presented the board said there is no reasonable of persecution there are some attacks but on the whole there's no reason to fear persecution they noted that things might be different if there was more evidence of the government being unable to control the violence but on this record the court said there is no reasonable practical effect here you claim on page four of the administrative records when the board said that in the event the respondent fails to depart or comply with the conditions which she has not done i don't think anybody disagrees with that the molina camacho there was some confusion initial days and this case was not caught but now they are being caught or at least were trying to catch them at the board level and it's unsettling because they messed up in this case they weren't sensitive to camacho this lady can stay even though she lost so we have no case or controversy well you have a case or controversy because when a camacho was wrongly decided well we don't have cases or controversies to look over it was decided what was aspect of the decision that's correct your honor absolutely as a whole because the board said the alien shall be removed if you did not the party voluntarily and you can't remove an alien unless she's removable and there wasn't an issue in  clearly it has to the board was intending in its opinion because again it said she shall be removed she's ordered removed it is not the part voluntarily and again as judge mchugh has pointed out four of this court sr circuits have addressed this precise issue and it all systemic persecution about the chinese or christians which is the test for the pattern in practice and she goes on to refute that by saying in point of fact is going to historical pattern of writing in indonesian history which begins with general writing in which the government loses control for third circuit is explicitly rejects the disparate group analysis but that's not my point my point is that the issue of pattern and practice was raised to the board they didn't rule on it why understand that if it goes back it shouldn't go back under bad law should go back  not no because pattern in practice is by definition doesn't have a right i'm talking about the regulatory standard i'm not talking about this very group my point is that before you can begin to