you can proceed well first of all mr long would you like to reserve any time and it's three minutes very good we have so little time together can i just cut to the heart of if you have things that are right that i'd be interested in knowing your response as you well know persecution is  defined in our circuit as being an extreme concept marked by infliction and suffering of harm usually a physical harm that is as opposed to say you know racial slights slurs discrimination things of that nature i have of course read your petition and i look at the things that you have alleged so far as i can tell there's no physical violence anywhere here i and things of that nature in schools is not unique to israel anywhere else and many parents worry about that kind of thing and as sad as i feel about that i'm trying to grasp where where these folks suffered persecution again not harassment not discrimination but persecution in the sense of physical violence serious extreme kinds of things that what i read about the the the wives of the rabbis coming over and harassing her as uncomfortable as it was and as perhaps one called for as it was i'm having difficulty seeing where that hope you understand i am not trying to make light of this in any way i'm sure it was horrifying for these folks i'm i'm trying to understand based upon the standards that are circuit has set for persecution action was taken how it was based on let's let's go to that you've been good enough to provide for us as you are required to do under the laws i know a copy of the letter that the former counsel presented to the b i a and i gather you stipulate to be a had that before the right when they made its decision ok she indicates that she had six viewed all this information extensively with your client some of the information that is now being stated was not provided to her she also indicates that she didn't put benjamin on the stand because he wasn't persecuted that in fact she worried that as a matter of strategy that the very thing that i'm concerned about here would happen that instead of it being treated as persecution it would be treated as harassment so there was a lot of trial strategy by any measure the former counsel was an experienced immigration lawyer i personally am kind caught on the horns of a dilemma here we have so many people that represent immigrants in the court who are with all due respect to some of them they're really incompetent whereas this woman was an experienced person to have her accused of being ineffective you've got a burden or you've got a really heavy burden and if you read her letter i'm troubled by the allegations so i would like you if you will please to address why hers batemans to the b i as to why she feels there was no far from being ineffective assistance of counsel that she went over backwards based upon the resources that these folks had even advancing some herself to present the best case  even says that with the allegation that she did not stop lament or or do anything further she said that he was already provided your honor this counsel provided he wrote country literals for the attorney general the record did not compel the conclusion that confrontational visits from rabbis why rocks being sore and a house or preschool bullying constitute persecution as the court has outlined these are just hateful prejudicial acts but they do not rise to the level of persecution similarly petitioners have failed to demonstrate the board of use its discretion in denying their motion to reopen because counsel did provide effective counsel to them and they have been unable to show any prejudice in this matter taking first there is filing claims there are silent claims fail for three fundamental reasons first of all act the petitioner described did not talk to persecution the whole young condoned they constituted harassment secondly and very importantly just or was unable to demonstrate any type of state action in fact the government of israel on three occasions moved the family to different locations cert does your spam lea and much of her family is used to live in israel and work in israel her mother and father receive government help here the father receives a government pension her brothers and sisters work in israel including serving in the israeli military these three factors provide substantial evidence in support of war cision when a shia alleges that i easier anyway in presenting and as a witness he could have said that these people who are continuing to live in research were not living there easily and without difficulties and that would have cut against what you just said and also he would have buttressed i guessed her testimony to make it more believable or something of that effect your honor i think it's very important to look at the actual statement from petitioners husband which is not mentioned services and there's the same type of harassment that petitioner described and the government with forced the wrath or whatever it is that group they belong to he had stopped providing assistance had some trouble in the community and they went to the government of israel and said please move it and they move them to it a different town the if you look at the testimony from petitioners husband once again describes discrimination specifically talking about going to work and being asked to do distasteful jobs and often working with individuals that he couldn't communicate with again this type of harassment or religious bigotry is wholly on condone but rather i to look at what that testimony would have been and in measure it is cumulative evidence of this type of harassment there are conflicts in israel i think we'll get to it in the next target we have more information in the record between  s group of ultra orthodox jewish and in many ways settlers in these in these villages the do not believe that immigrants such as petitioner should have been permitted to enter israel and that is manifested themselves  was fully prepared for the hearing and asked something to quiet and a list is a complete recitation of what in fact happened through the petitioners in israel this is not ineffective assistance i have a question i'm hoping that you or your opposing counsel can you can help me with one of the allegations against former counsel is that she did not provide an expert witness expert witnesses cost money usually the standard in our circuit or for that matter any circuit that you're aware of that would require a counsel in order to be effective to provide an expert witness out of his or her own pocket if the client the expert testimony is that not only the countries require effect of assistance but that the only way that they're hearing could have been fundamentally fair was with the provision of an expert well there are no standards for that because there is no such requirement importantly this would go against what this court has continuously set that asylum applicants can make their case and regularly make their case by presenting evidence what happened to them what they saw in their country what they experience and the voluntary departure issue at all now your position in the brief is that well there's no jurisdiction to review it but i suppose we take to view that well you're correct as far as to reviewing the merits of a then arguably they are not entitled what i'm what i was saying is that the court the board and the engine musicians they do not voluntary departure they do need a decision the agency made a decision the immigration judge denied the appeal this to the board were denied there's an entire record before this court and you have petitioner that is able to bring forth elements of this record that could cause the record just is not a given this is not a decision that incorporates you know it doesn't have an the board it mean the board have the obligation to address the contention made that you know that's why jared in denying voluntary departure if i may respond yes the idea that the board had some sort of articulation requirement is not the word in the regulation it is not supported in the statute the first a court would have to come up with its obligations and then come up with a reason to say that the board has not met that it is clear that these petitioners applications the applications before trial and amended application and brought to light these additional information and allowed mr that's here to testify this issue to have would have come forward but that didn't happen