jury's own findings and mr cooper's testimony in this case compel a reversal and a grant of asylum the i j a clearly found a pattern and practice of persecution and therefore should have found well founded of documents confirm the harassment and persecution and at times torture and killing of individuals in chain and kitchen problems by the burmese government as a result of their religious beliefs and activities of the primarily christian people living in these areas that the primary claim of my client is that he was persecuted based on his christian activities he also happens to be a chain which is primarily and they are primarily  christians and more productive for you to concentrate your argument on the persecution yes you're on in fact the immigration judge felt so confident of his knowledge of country one twenty nine and one thirty of the ministry of record when my client was asked what he knew about the burmese military the judge actually interjected and said i know about the burmese military i don't need to know what he knows about them i can extrapolate what he says to compare it to known conditions if there was no finding of pattern and practice persecution here based on christian activity then we believe it was legal error to prevent my client from testifying further about what he knew of how the persecution your honor in the one incident that was considered by the immigration judge with regard to past persecution was an incident of force porter of john one day in one nine hundred ninety the events that  were not considered by the judge were not weighed with regard to past persecution were specific threats that were made to my client in june one thousand nine hundred five the incidents that triggered his flight from burma his friend and colleague who practiced christianity and was one of the leaders of the s t a community who meant was killed just prior to his death he was tortured he was killed he was dragged through the streets as a message to other practicing christian heard that the military was actively hunting him down at that point fled to rangoon and left the country these are specific threats and this court has held that even specific threats without more without actual physical harm can i'm here in behalf of the government in this case the respondent i would like to just go ahead and start with rebutting countless arguments first i'd like to point out to the court that they're absolutely correct that the i j a did not find a pattern practice especially with regard to ethnicity and that that is not indicated on the administrative record on page eighty one in fact what the certainly yes your honor the import of that comment is really going to the credibility of the petitioner and the judge is basically saying that you know it's understanding from the records that are before him in the country reports in the documents himself did recognize that there were other preachers from his very organization the seventh day adventist organization who were actively preaching in burma at the time and you can find that in the immigration judge's decision at eighty one you can also find it in the well you know what i  of the villagers report to mr cub that the police are looking for him because he has continued to preach as well fearing for them and that he's going to get the same  leaves the country later on he finds out what into the future that the third individual returned to burma was met at the airport apparently by the  beaten or tortured and forced into the service in the army for the preaching that he had done and that was one of the trio that was the last the only and so it isn't that rather compelling evidence that this person was threatened with torture hand in fact death and fled the country because of those threats from the government on account of his religious preachings well absolutely that is a way that it could reasonably be interpreted however in this particular case the immigration judge as he was sitting there and absorbing all of this information and he was a reasonable track partner is he determined otherwise while it is very whether he rejected the concept that the treatment of mint and the threats to crop could constitute persecution but i think the immigration judge actually did look to that and i think what i think he did too  concluded to the contrary and there the question is well didn't that evidence compel a contrary finding and that made by the i j a right and i think that it doesn't campell and the reason is it didn't actually occur at the same time that the one incident that petitioner did have which was where he had to cart the suv for about twenty miles which was awful but it wasn't it didn't rise to the love of persecution this was a separate incident and petitioner was not there he didn't even observant there was no evidence on the record that this actually had anything to do with his religion in fact that's just the petitioner speculating that it had to do with his religion and i believe that's what the immigration judge politics whatsoever i mean in fact he denies that he has any affiliation with any of the political organization or that snake there was nothing he was involved in any politics either well i think there was testimony from the petitioner that indicated that he w tortured and killed because of his pro demo democracy views which was more a political persecution then it was a religious persecution and i think the judge took that with the fact that there are other adventists they're preaching currently and the fact that this particular area is loaded with christians and they apparently even though it's not as free obviously as in the united states to to worship your god that  can in fact worship their god and you know not and not be you know persecuted or killed for it  i think that the immigration judge considers the fact that no one in the country you know allegedly it goes like this that he was so afraid of going back because the burmans government was actually hunting him down and they were trying to catch him and i think the judge considered that you know if they really knew this guy's name and they were really trying to hunt him down then they could have at least stopped by his family's residence and inquired you know about them or perhaps even persecuted his family you know to punish them for the fact that they thought he either had you know these religious views or these pro democratic views and that his family was basically unmolested for at least five years on this record and you know additionally you know this kind of g wrote a letter to cup and told him about that right so the fact that the government doesn't last or bother a person while he's in another country doesn't mean that the government is not going to do it if that person cries to return and indeed is exactly what they is the third member of the group well there definitely is evidence on the record that that occurred but the i j did you hear that evidence indicates included otherwise so you know i think i would just have to tell you that as far as you know their record is concerned there was only one incident persecution which didn't or one incident that didn't rise to the level of persecution and the immigration judge determined that there but sometimes it's hard for me to understand the government's position and sometimes i know you have to take hard cases as far as i'm concerned you know burma is one of the worst countries in the world as far as their human rights reports all kinds of cases of human rights abuses religious abuses ethnicity abuses and as far as i'm concerned here if we can justify invading iraq because hussein is the bad man the  it's clearly disguising conjecture and that's what the judge did as a reasonable finding in this case the cases cited by the government for the notion that being able to renew or obtain  passport outside the country where in this case was no evidence of what kind of communication even existed between the embassy and the military in burma and whether i'm what ground with they even