twenty sixth and at approximately four in the morning mr smiley was in his bedroom and his partner and his father burst in unannounced and discovered that his son was in a homosexual relationship mr smiles father began to shout that his son had betrayed the family and that who faced the rap for his evil to the shouting of the father to the attention of members of the community who then crowded into mr smiley bedroom in the form of the mob they brought with them weapons like sticks iron rods and they began beat mr smiley and his partner while they were still naked on the bed they dragged them from the bedroom to the court yard where the mob then began to argue over how best to execute mr smile and his partner either by beheading or by fire mr sm beating rises to the level of past persecution under the standards set forth by this court in the case chivery of gonzales because he endured a threat to his life that was imminent menacing and concrete and he suffered harm from that is what you make  that the applicant suffered a threat to their life that was imminent menacing and concrete as we have here mr smile over us directly threatened by this mob they argued in front of him how they planned on executing him not whether they should execute him they then took steps toward that execution by pouring kerosene over him and by bringing a weapon like a cutlass which would be capable be having a person and he suffer harm from this incident he did sustain injuries to his head back and face he testified to that as well but the gun that the government is unwilling and unable to control mr smiley himself testified that he feared returning because his father is still looking for him and intends to behead him if he finds him his friend testified that the government does not care for the rights of homosexuals and that politicians often make promises to eradicate homosexuals from the country the country reporter and amnesty international report both state that homosexuals cannot report these instances of violence that happened against them to the police force that has the police force will then harass them blackmail them be violent twangers homosexuals who report any instances of violence so yes this is an ongoing threat to his life especially now that he has been outed as a sexual they relied largely on keepin to be attorney general and tend the ask prop to determine that a single incident that does not result in serious harm to start rise level past persecution however that is not the standard that was set forth in china ria in this case i asking for here what is it that we should do if we agree with you we should be remanded yesterday we got a letter from the government involving the matter of a b case of this case you sent back with the matter of eighty three that apply to  this series i don't think the matter of eighteen us fairly changes the conclusion that the court should reach because we have demonstrated that the government is unable and unwilling to roll the persecution that is that private actors the did not need medical treatment however mr smiley never testified that he didn't need medical treatment rather when he was questioned as to whether or not he sought medical treatment he said that he was too afraid to leave the shelter of his friend's home to he was afraid to go to the hospital and expose himself to further persecution and your honor i see that i'm almost out of time and i'd like to turn to my colleague scott kane who will be arguing the final point we would like the court to address through books thank you better has already spoken to you about the past persecution mr smile his face i will be addressing the future persecution that mr smiley will likely face if forced to return to gone there are two parts of future persecution the subject of genuine fear and the objective reasonable possibility of persecution the immigration judges are already ruled that mr smile the hat has met the burden of subjective fear so that just leaves us today with the objective here that he is likely to face future persecution what do you make of the language of the eight immigration judges opinion that he could live a full life you just did let folks know that he would get it's a drastic mischaracterization of asylum law the fact that the judge already acknowledges that homosexuality is a particular social group and then goes on to say that he should have to hide that immutable characteristic is what asylum is for so the that is by homosexuality has actually targeted male homosexuality with these laws and the judge and the government miss characterizes this as a mere misdemeanor however it is not a misdemeanor in the way that we would think of like a fine or maybe even a short jail sentence he could be in prison for up to three years and there's no way for him to report any violence that he would suffer because in order to do that he has to go to the police and acknowledge that he was beaten because he was a homosexual which would put him in the position of potentially being arrested there is nowhere in guyana that he can go where he is not likely to face some form of persecution the country report further bears this out when they talk about how the law isn't does not prohibit do spread discrimination in employment and education the police harass and extort homosexuals the police are reluctant to investigate claims of assault or violence and imprison gay men were often victims of physical and sexual assault this all leads to the to the fact that homosexuals feel intimidated and that the attitude of the police would not lead them to any successful protection this is also buried out by the amnesty international report and other n g o s where they say that homosexuality continues or to be a crime the in the homosexuals in ghana hasa face police harassment discrimination violence and blackmail countrywide again there is no place that they can really relocate in the political discourse mister if ever ham one of his friends said that the authorities i'm gonna have minimal concern for gay rights and politicians are always promising electric's elect gays and their political campaign messages this is to say that the politicians are actively campaigning for the elimination and the eradication of homosexuals which meets the burden set forth by the government and fifteen case where the government says that we have to show that there is a pattern of discrimination against this group and we can show that by the the country reports in the political discourse all creates a cultural norm where the father felt that it was ok to take up arms against his son when he discovered he was homosexual further the father was able to call for the community who quickly rallied to the father to execute no one stop to think about whether this was right or wrong and then he added and they were they had no fear of doing this because of the attitude of the police the police are not going to come and protect a homosexual in guyana and then this all ends with mr abrams who was mr s las sabir savior even though he allowed mr smiler to stay in his home he only allowed him to do so very briefly before he even he feared for his life in case of retaliation against him for protecting a homosexual and when he gave his testimony at the end of it he asked that we keep the testimony confidential because he feared that even testifying on behalf of mr smiley could lead to his that so we can see that any objectionable person in mr smiley situation would fear returning to some to guyana and facing persecution for being a homosexual there's nowhere for mr smiler to relocate and gonna and mr smiled and further if this were a case of any other protected social group if this was a religion if this was a political attitude the court the court below would have probably had no difficulty seeing that mr some i would  painful and it was unjust however under the case law of this circuit it was not persecution the agency was reasonable where it found that based on mr c majlis testimony he experience one single isolated attack that involved no serious harm to his body perpetrated by persecution but even as my colleague correctly noted that there are the subjective component of well founded fear was was deemed met the objective evidence in the record showed that the no objective fear existed i based on the country reports and based on the fact that there was no past persecution and therefore no rebuttable presumption of future because of your past persecution this is what judge will rob this question because up until that point his community didn't know he was that characterization of characterization and says i don't think supported by the record and even the immigration judge meet findings as to the specific question whether or not there was a well founded fear in the future of persecution alternately  question repeatedly over the last fifteen years and is said that there is an imprecise line between when harm goes from from unfortunate to outrageous is an imprecise one however at the heart of a foul misuse a mile in this case did not rise to that level absolutely so in i should be area for instance that is a case where there were so few separate instances of harm that he felt the non citizen in that case first was an act of surveillance second was an act where the person was one on off the road taken by paramilitary troops into their vehicle and held at gunpoint with an explicit threat that they were going to end that person's life that peace isn't comparable to here where there's only suggested that this was an imminent threat the attack which the immigration judge considered in its totality consisted of a physical assault and intimidation that intimidation included we should perhaps take this individual to the police perhaps we should do other things to pursuing him he was able to escape them by running ten minutes and then once he got to his friend's home where he remained for two days he never sought medical treatment when the immigration judge  incident happened i was so fred the immigration judge asked me d h as counsel asked did you get any medical treatments or mr simyra when this incident happened i was so afraid i was so afraid i couldn't even go to a hospital i was just afraid to points that number one this persecution and the government's position is as the agency reasonably found that the having injuries to your head into your mouth and your back does not rise to the level of persecution especially when you never needed medical treatment even if we accept the premise that mr smiley did not need medical treatment or did not could not access medical treatment because he was too afraid that doesn't explain why he spent two weeks in togo why he didn't seek medical treatment there or when he made the trip to edward work that he didn't medical treatment there or that they didn't seek medical treatment in the entire trip from south america to the united states border or hungry chains salvation in this country the fact that he does not have any threat of severe beating s judge as affirmed by the board of immigration appeals found that the country reports contained evidence of widespread discrimination and harassment however discrimination and harassment are not types of conduct that this court has found to be outrageous and moreover the any types of government action that we see in the country report does not involve any physical harm or violence perpetrated by the police or other actors and back the record also contains agencies decision i however if this court were to find that the well founded fear portion of the case was insufficient the case wouldn't need to be reminded for those purposes and that's another point to you that i'd like to correct the record and again i did i want to commend really th as i said before that even if reasonable minds can differ as to whether this harm constituted persecution that does not compel reversal in this case is an extremely deferential standard and the immigration judge fully consider not only the your honors the government discusses past harm in a single incident an awful lot however as good as your honour's have properly pointed out the alternative to mr somalia suffering more than one incident would have been to return to a similar situation and perhaps actually be killed this court can't reasonably expect someone who has suffered such a severe threat to their life where substantial steps were taken to actually end his life to return to a situation in order to a second time in order to justify more than one incident this court's never held that we need one incident this court has held that a that a threat to life is sufficient enough to be past persecution and we have that here the i j a further found the testimony credible meaning that we know that mr smiley face this threat to his life and then the government proposed the alternative well they could have arrested him but that's not arbitrary that is in fact specifically targeted against homosexual males it's not an arbitrary arrest and it still meets the definition that the government to set forward and the government also misstates the country reports as there are cases of homes against people who have physically abused homosexuals there was one listed in the campaign to eradicate homosexuals in ghana he is and how did homosexuals he is definitely going to face persecution upon his return and imprisonment is a form of torture by taking away his liberty and there are there's evidence in the record in the state report of vigilante mobs that the government is unable and unwilling to control