petitioners described in their hearings do constitute persecution creating a rebuttal presumption of persecution secondly that there is in fact a nexus between the response nationality and religion  given less weight than they actually were the acts that occurred to me was a piston or were were some pretty serious acts that put petitioners life in jeopardy and continue to put the question of life in jeopardy assume for purposes of this question that there is a rebuttable presumption i wonder why there isn't substantial evidence on the record as a whole that it was rebutted because if you are the unions kept going back to his practice thing even  to the fact that he goes back speak louder than his words that he's a free too and the only reason they gave is well we wanted to see jewish doctor there she didn't find jewish doctors about any place in the world you can find your socks anyplace in the world however there is not too many places in the world where at this point in their lives they are tunisians could have received medical benefits a lot of times people go back to the countries where they  persecution because they have no choice because their whole family is there because this is where they live this is where they know this is home even though it's i remember it's somebody without money walked into an emergency room here needed to go on to where their family was it was in that they didn't fear persecution it was that they needed to get healthy and if it needed to go back to inspect the stand to find a jewish doctor who treat them within their means that's what absolutely your honor but the entire time he was keeping his family and his family still is is not living is not living out in the open because they fear persecution ok let me ask you the other question now for when i read the country report it looked to me as though armenians rundown of the badly treated and this fellow was badly treated and the people who treated him badly had bad feelings toward armenians but it sounded a stand everybody is badly treated just an awful government awful police awful jails and i can see where there was any difference for armenians and anyone else who had the misfortune to be in that dictatorship mean there's all sorts of mistreatment of all sorts of human rights violations there's two there's two things that are going on in respect to stem the first is kind of like me they caught this guy for currency violation anyone with any sense in  country with a phony currency regime trades on the black market but if they get caught they get thrown in jail and when they get thrown in jail in a country like that i think it treated very badly i couldn't see where it had to do with know when or persecution could occur you never know whether or not when you wake up in the morning whether or not you're going to get a visit from the betty police and spend a few days in custody being mistreated or not and as and this is the point that we are tuning in fear going back because they don't know when the next time they don't know whether or not that the next day to be their last and that is why they fear persecution and that is why there is because this mistreatment is not because of any reason other than the fact that they are armenians the immigration judge made no finding as the credibility thus we have to take for i think the testimony for what it is and that's truthful and  i'm puzzled by your claim that they can go back to respect the country they may not be able to go back to his hometown because of the persecution was received there that he can go to power the sister lives that's where he went to get treatment does not make a difference well it's widespread throughout the country the reason he was singled out in his particular town is because people knew who he was but if you donald yes please the court my name is lisa arnold i'm here today representing the respondent in this matter the attorney general of united states the only issue before the court is whether the immigration judge's decision in this case denying the petitioners applications for asylum and withholding of removal or supported by substantial evidence the government's position is that it's supported by more than substantial evidence in the record and the petitioners that come nowhere near satisfying the very high standards they must  it looks as though the level of mistreatment is probably enough to qualify as and persecution and what have you got to show it's not on a protected ground or  persecution in his pakistan they live there for a period of ten years which was punctuated by isolated incidents of mistreatment some of which involved no governmental interest or involvement however they returned to the country from numerous foreign countries including the united states on numerous occasions to further their business objective to care for their health needs to check in on their children who they left behind when they left that country to travel to the united states they lived relatively peacefully as the immigration judge found in her decision in this country for upwards of ten years and mr seagal just indicated that they they were persecuted and was back a stand because they were armenian and that therefore every armenian and i winery in tashkent to the children and the record at this point is upwards of three years old but the record indicates that at the time of their hearing the children had been left behind in moscow with the grandparents but they were left behind when the couple originally traveled to the united states in one thousand nine hundred with a sister in tashkent as well as mr ruden toony and mother was left there too and they were they were visited again by their parents when their parents left the united states to travel back in two thousand to attend to one to attend to his medical needs and want to attend to a song's emotional condition that had arisen well are you arguing that it's not enough that of armenian and the city your honor i would argue both first and foremost the immigration judge correctly concluded that the acts to which mr and mrs a routine were subjected simply although unfortunate and certainly harassing and arguably mistreatment did not rise to the severe level of persecution persecution as defined by the ninth circuit and many other circuits is not every act of harm or disparagement that our society may consider offensive it requires he's an armenian that pretty colored well your honor no i would contend that the record does not support that the reason behind the taking the revocation of his commercially that anything to do with his armenian ethnicity and fact the fact that the landlord originally lea t the commercial property to him for a four year period defies any conclusion that he was a racist it seems as if the revocation of the lease occurred after mr aruca union was imprisoned and ultimately convicted on a guilty plea of having used that premises to deal in illicit currency american currency which was against the long expected stand at the time so the government would argue in the i j a found that there is no record evidence to support that the revocation of his commercial leasehold had anything to do with his ethnicity and in fact the fact that he originally was able to obtain that we sold in the first instance the lies in the conclusion that there was an armenian anti armenian hostility that was pervasive in the business community the record also demonstrates that misery to union travelled upwards of looted from conducting business or harassed to such an extreme level that they were unable to support their family or live productively inspector stan so the government would contend that not only do the isolated instances of mistreatment that they were subjected to do not rise to the level of persecution but more importantly even if they were found to have there is no connection between what happened to them and their race or their adverse political opinion and certainly their own actions defy any conclusion that their claims to fear  are well founded in response to the current country conditions which were raised during petitioners argument i have reviewed the most recent human rights practices report whose back a stand that covers the calendar year two thousand and five which was issued in march of this year certainly is as everyone can probably agree that human rights situation there is not ideal however i could find very little in the report that indicates armenians in particular are singled out for disproportionately severe treatment in fact it looks as if the folks currently suffering in that country the most are extremist muslim groups and extremism is defined by the government there so it seems to me that any claims to be well founded where stuff well founded really fearful of returning  are certainly not stand cheated by the record and i would just like to reiterate that the standard that applicable here is the compelling evidence standard the routine unions cannot simply come forward and say there's a difference of opinion as to a reasonable conclusion be drawn from the evidence they might show that the evidence they presented compels the opposite conclusion from that one which the i j a reached in this case certainly it's the government's decision they've come no work we're satisfying that fairly high standard and as a result this court simply found and the government is simply asserting now that the evidence presented didn't satisfy their burden of proving their statutory eligibility for the reef relief which they sought not to think were untruthful in the manner in which they testified one could be found credible and still be found not to have satisfied their burden of proving their entitle to the relief they seek and that is exactly what the immigration judge found in this case if there are no further questions of me i would simply like to conclude my time by reiterating that the petitioners needed to demonstrate by compelling evidence that they satisfied their standard here and they simply have not done so as a result this court must affirm the immigration judge decision and dismiss the petition for a view thank you the treatment that he received an inside job in custody without any told of his armenian heritage every time there was an incident the people who persecute ing would would tell him that you are mean and they would use racial slurs east testified truthfully that this was because he was armenian he was the only one there unfortunately we can testify if we were there and if if the judge found him credible and he says that it was because i'm armenian  we have no other choice but to do and if the police arrest somebody for a crime and he is in fact guilty of the crime in the news that he's guilty the evidence is good he really committed the crime in the course of the arrest they call him nasty names beat him more so than they would say they beat him because he's armenian then that becomes persecution based on his nationality it's not the fact of the arrest it's the treatment during the arrest that gives rise to persecution let me ask you this what the country conditions information submitted by both sides in this case and to say that armenians are part of a persecuted group so he testified that he didn't engage in any of these illegal acts he was it's clear from the record