relating what had happened to other people within the family but what evidence can you point to that what you characterize as ineffective assistance of counsel would have made a difference had it been presented to the i does not require proof of persecution certainly persecution if proved very significant in shift the burden of proof to the government why the claim should not helpful help me with that you're saying that in order to obtain asylum you don't have to show that you  persecuted that is correct you have to establish and have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to the well that's the future but you also have to show past persecution well i would question whether you have to correct that your position that you're not alleging past persecution you're just saying that there is a fear of future persecution that is correct we're not alleging that the incidence rose to the level of persecution by were certainly harmful and would i would i would agree with that and i think that's particularly why corroborative evidence of what happened to other individual kimberly situated can be very important and i also think that's why having an expert who  well versed in the overall country condition let's talk about the expert you've probably heard the question i asked the counsel for the government his position is that there is no certain no constitutional obligation of the government to provide money for expert witnesses there's not even obligation to provide counsel let's take the situation at least as i understand it for your client your client either did not have resources or was unwilling to pay resources to hire an expert is that correct well i'm not aware of got from the record i i thought that the attorney's letter indicated that she was why why was she wrong what what was the expert have shown that the country report did not provide the country report reciting some incidents of harassment and harm to metz not a christian  professor manderville in a declaration that was submitted as part of our motion spoke to a more extensive pattern of these incidents and again when the claim is not so so his testimony had it been given would not necessarily have buttressed her own subjective and objective fears of future persecution  well we don't know that by what we do know that in my client's case the court we've basically presented with just a rather isolated set of circumstance understand the don't doesn't doesn't your client bear the burden to show in a case where you're claiming that there was ineffective assistance of counsel that had the council done a proper job that it would have changed the course of the proceedings based upon evidence that you put proceedings and while it but it's not that nebulous i mean here here you have an experienced lawyer who made a decision strategic decision i respect the fact that you say you disagree with it and i know your previous counsel also disagree with it but that's a strategic decision what evidence would the expert have presented that would meet the standard of proof necessary for your client to show that there was there is a well founded objective fear of future persecution other incidents of harm would i believe help meet our burden and i i i would also i don't view  specifically on the expert testimony we are not in a world of theory here we have what the expert would have testified to he cited to two areas again referring to private ultra orthodox jewish group harassing messianic christians one a two thousand and five christmas demonstration in which a pastor was assaulted and to a group that demonstrates in information is again cumulative evidence of the same type of harassment luckily petitioner has actually provided us accounts of where this is based on where these facts in the fish are based on and consistently through the nine article that petitioner has provided to the board the police were involved in in multiple occurrences including the two thousand and five christmas demonstration which apparently got out of hand the police pain actually needs more police to separate the parties the assault that was described included the pastor being pushed into a baptismal pool the police responded to that and prevented further violen issue of other demonstrations there's evidence to record that petition are provided from a christian persecution dot com which talk about a group that the police a primitive a large protest a permitted a smaller protest further away from certain messianic christians again when we actually get into the detail of what's going on in israel we do not find the permitted or from don't harm now that that the idea that the government either is involved or condones or permits these kinds of things is clearly an element to for them to show past persecution what role does it play with respect to a well founded fear of future persecution that they have to show as well that the government has been persecution the tactical decision that which if you're disagreed with is the idea from her former counsel to look talk about what happened to you you can testify to it and say that this happens look out and it constitute persecution what petitioner now arguing is that i would like to show that there's a pattern or practice of persecution throughout all of israel this is a much more difficult take demonstrate and so therefore they want to bring forward evidence that this persecution is condoned in israel and they can show that by its response in the past how that would predict into the future however they can bring forth that evidence because we do have these ultra orthodox groups that harass christians holy and condone this is in our view would be despicable however when it rises to the level that could be violent the police step in and that's what these articles demonstrate they could if the expert relied on this type of harassment and then jump to the conclusion of persecution and it may well be that especially these web sites that are documenting the mistreatment of christians around the world they believe that that would be what they would constitute persecution it's not what the law would require again we have these groups demonstrating it's distasteful it's bigotry however when it comes to the government of israel it appears that they are conducting  investigations in fact one of the article references arresting someone who assaulted a messianic christian and sentencing them to jail so if there are any is there any evidence and of what the expert witness would have said based upon the record that would tie the government of israel into these types of violent protests or can either condoning it or being directly involved there's nothing in there that would condone it or be directly involved what he g there is no support in the record that the israeli government would support arming these individuals or persecuting these individuals and that is that is a fine line and what the expert has said is he believes that these these groups support t current government and no government would go against them all that is and that may be true when it comes to demonstrations it may be true when it comes to prejudice but there is no evidence that the government would condone criminal actions in fact the police do not condone those criminal action there's along israel's one of these articles points out against this type of harassment that could be implemented but it is clear that there are political and religious conflicts in israel with how to deal with individuals that came to israel under the of return when they are in fact christian and that is something that israel is dealing with in those conflicts if you manifest themselves in this type of harassment but it is important to look at the actual testimony the actual facts that are too sure says how paternity would have provided described and remember this evidence with to overcome the fact that her family continues to to live in israel and the fact that she came to the united states on three previous occasions and returned three or four children came to united states and return to israel again not showing that she fears this type of future persecution you know they argument about the evidence that could have been presented would simply have been in addition to the evidence which the specific finding on that particular issue and therefore we would treat her testimony as credibility is that for i know that's what occurred in the other case in this case the judge found a credible and the bore and evaluated the the evidence as presented to wouldn't make any difference if it were truly credible if you if it were in addition to what she already suggested and if she were a credible witness then that evidence would stand and you're saying additional somebody else saying the same thing would remain any different it wouldn't make any difference and actually is less important what is important in asylums what happens to the individual help the individual be affected when she describes a discrimination and she brings an expert to say yes in fact this occurred well that bo discriminated pervasive persecution in israel which is not supported by the record i want to change to a slightly different subject as judge to shimon mentioned the issue of voluntary departure in the not coach eve case whatever one may say about incorporation by the v a isn't it correct that the b i a ultimately granted her voluntary departure yep it was really a moot point in this case is it not that it would mean she was granted she was if you'd like to use the balance of your time here i just want to add that in response to counsel's argument that we do not need to they they can certainly go but in order to establish persecution they still have to show a reasonable fear that the government will be involved or will condo persecution is also a factor that can substantiate a clean i have nothing further and was quite good in the questions thank you gentlemen for your argument the case just heard will be submitted and we will next year argument in the case of shielding international versus oak harbor freight lines