which was during the time of the riots that occurred in one nine hundred eighty eight and during that protest the military in the police came in and started shooting some of the demonstrators he fled and was able to see that persecuting people of chinese ethnicity as long as well as persons of the christian religion as a result of the testimony we felt at the burden of proof has shifted to the government to prove the country the ethnic chinese as well as christians as noted the petitioners past experiences included the pamphlet which stated that christians should leave chinese or that they would be killed the attack it was a frivolous application which was overturned by the b i say so and also he stated specifically as the us was testimony that he didn't believe anything that the expert said and and actually farmed or it was another church and served by that was bomb that gave him pause to go to his church and serve by any longer because he was afraid that would be the next one to be bombed even regardless of what which of those scenarios you look at he with the muslim new year and the fifth was his family's involvement not his immediate family but his aunt and uncle involvement with the riots of one thousand nine hundred eighty eight and what happened to their property as a result there of each of those four out of the five situations no harm came to the position himself now what the immigration judge me two distinct find is in this case the first was that the he didn't believe the varying stories with regards to his application as opposed to his in court testimony and with regard to the january two thousand and one attack that occurred in conjunction with the new year's celebration there are some pretty glaring inconsistency and that was the one incident where the petitioner was actually harmed if you believe the vision or goldy the immigration judge did it was the only one in which he testified that he was actually harmed and there are several consistencies with that testimony regarding how that occurred in his declaration he doesn't talk about a motorbike the fact that he was travelling to and from the supermarket on a motorbike he does testify to that in his actual hearing testimony he also testified as our states in his declaration that the attack occurred as he was leaving the supermarket in his testimony he petitioner that the one incident where he was actually harmed did not rise to the level of persecution and i think that's where your honest question comes in about the individual is risk that in practice evidence things of that nature  i don't know that is being quantified yet just how much an individual has to be harmed before they can before they reach that level but i do know is that the cases state that there is a well i don't think they necessarily calling him by an ethnic term would would put him in the category of having been persecuted on account of a of his ethnicity i think that the you have to look at the motive of the individuals as they attack and what did they do with him and what was their goal in attacking him in this case a priest seem pretty clear that what they wanted was his food and his money because one once they pulled him over that's what they took and then they left him so it isn't it previous discussion that there was a a an understanding or a feeling that ethnic chinese are better off in their ethnic indonesians and therefore any chinese person is going to have money we had a motorbike and he obviously had food so which you know maybe he meant led them to believe that he had more and that was why they attacked him but it seems to be a criminal act more than it is a persecuted act