been persecuted on account of one of the of the american numeri in human rated factors excuse me he also states in his opinion that he's not satisfied that in this particular case the government in power does not make an attempt to control such i believe the states indonesia and india he makes an unfair comparison here we have twenty years of ongoing strife we have four coups we have twenty years of racial tension and hostility also that's part of this ongoing strife between the native through talking about the tickler incidents and then he comes to a point where he suggests that and then and now kind of having already determined that there is persecution or that there isn't persecution on the other hand we're going to talk about something else so it doesn't seem to me that it's unclear that he's determined there isn't persecution that i'm sorry  that he did not determine that there is not persecution correct hand if there is persecution that's where that's where he is on the other hand right so if he's going to get to the other hand he certainly made a he certainly made a a determination that he doesn't find persecution in the first paragraph where he has quite a bit of stuff that we're now referring to then he goes to the on the other hand and then it goes even further even if then it doesn't and he's trying to say that it as i understand it it doesn't relate to the government conduct correct and that that that's my understanding also your honor however i think that the i g is in error in the sense that well i can understand your argument that he's very i'm just trying to make sure what your argument is it seems to me that he goes in three different directions first of all he says there's no persecution second of all he says if there is then that persecution you know he doesn't believe it really meets the standard and then he says even if it doesn't even if it does meet the standard the government's not the one that's either backing off or not trying to do something about it so he's hit at three different times in three different ways i can understand your argument but i just want to make sure you agree with me with those conclusions i do agree on it and the next thing is that if we find that aren't we really looking then for substantial evidence yes we are and we believe that substantial evidence in this case does not exist he does reference as a as i mentioned earlier that the government he doesn't believe that that in this particular case the government was unable or unwilling to assist certainly substantial in this he doesn't acknowledge and probably on the other but what about i don't quite understand his basis for finding out persecution and therefore i find a hard time i have a hard time evaluating it like you understand his  the size they all seem to indicate or there are at least ninth circuit law indicating and be a law in the case that even though there was some acts that would seem to be persecution in those cases they found them not to be persecution yes ron r j all those those are the ones that you the people generally psych on our court for even though their stomachs of my look like persecution they're really not persecution they don't add up and so therefore we don't give them persecution correct that's correct your honor he cites yes i'm aware that but also if you look at it as a mixed motive situation characterizes the petitioner's testimony is describing in general acts a lawless lawlessness right and you know random violence but at the same time it does concede that there is this context of the facts in this case the fact that racial slurs were uttered do not overlook the fact that with with the with the whole mob or it was clear that he was looking for money both of the robbers are looking for money so persecution or not constituting and individualized threats as the board phrased it we believe that place is an unfair burden on petitioner we would also submit that the board in reviewing the motion reopen only viewed in isolation the two thousand coup and didn't take into account the twenty years of ongoing strife the credible testimony of petitioner as to his claimed incidents of persecution and the fact that in his