d aliens are going and exaggerating not telling the truth they're not credible in this case the petitioner was credible the immigration judge found that the petitioner testified consistently internally as well as consistently with the with the documents  submitted in the record of proceedings in fact the immigration judge found that she had met the first prong there's a subjective standard of the reasonable fear and that was credible immigration judges are now hearing the board of immigration service said you were not injured therefore it does not rise and they disregard the fact that there was a pattern and practice of persecution and discrimination against people similarly situated to the petitioner and she has once threatened i think the press standing on it wouldn't be enough the question is whether the bombing of the church here present constitute enough of a past persecution what's your best case on that we believe that the that the strongest case and the strongest argument for that is that she was in a church that was being assaulted being burned there was definitely a significant chance yes she may have been she may have been killed and safety and we believe that that would be enough subjectively to support her fear and then also objectively somebody has experience in nine eleven watching what was happening on t v here in the united states it's certainly harm and again they disregard the fact that here in the ninth circuit you don't need to have physical harm you don't need to be physically injured you don't need to tell these great exaggerated stories to prevail in a case mother remained and in addition went to church without harm here and in the ninth circuit as you know the fact that a family member remains behind or may contrary the i just family remains in the native country and harm she testified that was going on over there had never impaired her rights activists or in any goes through a long a different conclusion because compound because she was there at that ground zero and the fact that her mother or other family members or other chinese may be residing in indonesia and have not experienced the attain some degree of supervisory control in her job she was still allowed to practice religion her mother remained there on harm and all of that still is comparable to the conclusion to the contrary is compelled by th mother didn't hear these rumors or didn't hear these threats other similarly situated chinese women in indonesia weren't specifically in that same position and we would believe that a threat is enough especially especially when coupled with the pattern and practice coupled with the fact that she was in a great amount of the air in those three day rice in jakarta when you when you put all of this together and you look at it we believe that you don't need to have made him happen to you know you don't need to have been raped you don't need to have your serious bodily injury and in this case this certainly could amount to psychological torture of being confined in a space fearing rape for three days you know being in a position where you are at work and you fear a threat and you don't believe that the police are going to protect you you don't believe that the government's going to protect you and the record of cell on the documents submitted by co counsel and this includes the department of s this regard of the rest and there is a few statements in the department of state reports and again another reality of the trial courts in the immigration context is that a lot of the immigration judge feel that the department of state report is wholly red and they will look and see that yes there are some christians yes there are chinese and indian asian yes they can practice their religion but you know that is taken away and presented outside of the context of actually being  i would say that in my practice and we we present cases differently than other people so i don't know what's happening but let me say when i was a prosecutor brian asked i would say that maybe one in fifty cases would be granted and her harker i represent the attorney general in this case i'd like to go over the that the standard of her view which is highly deferential as you pointed out your honor and you cannot be overturned unless the record evidence compelled it in this case record evidence simply does not compel overturning to the decision below  enough persecution there was nothing ever drag to her she did experience apparently she was there while the rights were going on but no one in her family was ever harmed nobody that she knew was harmed except maybe she possibly had a friend  her business was needed other than that fisher did not experience any difficulties except having to stay in her house for three days which is not right the level of persecution if she'd been injured in the bomb blast would your answer be different y chinese christians at some point i mean originally it appears that it was directed at the government for not doing something about the poverty level and according to the country ports that muslims are poorer than the ethnic chinese christians which is why they turned their anger against the ethnic chinese christians but it was a condition of general strikes and the fact that she wasn't the immigration judge didn't focus only on the fact that she wasn't the whole he'd look at several different factors and one of the factors is that never been arrested never been detained never there was no harm to any of her family her mothers came to the united states and then went home and lives there peacefully had never had any trouble going to church she was able to practice for things she had provided position even after the riots she went back to work she did have a problem with one employee who apparently made a threat to her and then he left and she never saw him again i know opposing counsel argued she was constructively dismissed from her position but that the record does not support anything along those lines she chose not to go back to work because she was afraid and the immigration judge and the board both found that she was subject to plea afraid of what was going on there but again that's not enough to show a well founded fear of future persecution it's just the objectively reasonable and the board and the immigration judge found that her fair was not objectively reasonable based on the country report s that her her family remains there unharmed and her mother was able to return there and had not had any problems and her mother would be used in the least situated person she herself has been at explains question her answer all their on harm so it appears at least in the city of jakarta that things are going thoroughly well for the ethnic chinese christians they're a very able to go to church and they're not being harmed so they don't with the net that a gun on says on the evidence of record there is nothing that between every ethnic chinese christian into karna at the same time and your client well we believe that again the distinction is how close are you through that theory i would say at least with respect to the to the second incident that happened in the church which everybody in the church are very very very sure that everybody that risk being killed when when the church was being attacked and burned and possibly a nybody that has faced serious and credible threats regarding their safety because of an action that they have had that may be deemed inconsistent with the muslim religion as in this case when she when she had a problem with