and i don't know what some wackos that are running around the smoke bombs following him around at church that show that the government or anybody else within the concept of persecution and asylum are doing it within this record but when i think i don't think the record with the documentary evidence that the government does not protect these people after the fall of the soviet empire the rise of nationalism and christian orthodoxy has been on the rise so for anybody says i have a fear of future persecution and there's nothing that a record of either any abuses and he threats and interrogation i would agree with your honor that person wouldn't have enough there has to be the case law but in this case they are and that's why it's so important that the court takes every incident from one thousand nine hundred ninety five to nine hundred ninety eight where he leaves where there's a common threa family members they were directed generally at the church and then he seems to dismiss that as is therefore not being persuasive and i guess that reasoning concerns me that he seems to acknowledge that it's direct and and i ninety four he says as a single it's incident but there's no record of the refusal of the of the government to to stop it it is a single incident and it's speculation by the petitioners here that the government couldn't or wouldn't help so it still has to be a pattern of persecution by the government to get into that regulation and to avoid the singling out requirement so i understand your argument correctly even if he's wrong about his analysis now if there's another good reason to go with what he says which is that there's no demonstration that it's the government doing it or refusing to do anything about it and i say that he's wrong i'm saying he the immigration should always look at whether being singled out and then look at whether they fall within the other exception he's doing both part say not singled out and well with the group think persecuted in general and he's saying well this is one incident there's no speculation that the state synagogue or one church is bombed and the people inside are hurt and it's done because of their religion is it your position that the regulation still requires the petitioner to demonstrate that they personally were targeted or is that enough for them to demonstrate to read the regulation and your reading of pattern and practice this pattern and practice require more than one church or synagogue bombing or is one bombing enough if it's one bombing where the i took me to answer that and the in the abstract your honor wh of the regulation and how it applies to a situation of this kind and i know you don't agree with that but i'm actually soon after the second a question if we were to disagree with the way in which he analyzed the evidence what would be the proper remedy would  weather the agency and the fact finders which are scientists this roll by congress would find its past persecution under that under that you can correct reading in your view i'm not argue the record again but even the petitioners own testimony is that it could have been rowdy kids as opposed to any persecution by the state or necessarily singling out the trying to harass why i asked the question earlier about whether those are two independent bases to support what you immigration  in the record just a small bombing right anywhere anybody for any reason it happened in a church now the fact that a bomb hits a church is that fact that's all that that's what we're saying there's also i think the absence of evidence of a pattern of bomb suicide that mr so i was was hit but the record shows it was a protest was allowed and at some point was broken up by the military to keep the peace and to keep the military base open which immigration judge was that a legitimate purpose his job you know this is one incident it's believed religious discrimination and harassment losing one's job is not compel the finding of persecution by an immigration judge i think the record shows that even though he's a seventh day adventist he was a very successful businessman in his country and was able to hold a important job there and make a good living the fact that one job with an item doesn't require the immigration judge to find a persecution a misstatement it's like if they were going to contest the issue of the pattern and practice the time that they should have done it was before the immigration just before this documents were stuff that the other tribe wanted to address quickly was there was no adverse