of vangelis to say asylum application is they still on her past persecution and the past persecution of and the cost as a group in the ukraine both by the government and by individuals or groups that the government is unwilling or unable to control and this is an interesting case because the immigration judge applied an erroneous analysis of the difference between mere discrimination and persecution in the country reports submitted by the government and to the immigration judge indicate a finding by congress of the historical pattern of persecution of evangelical christians in the ukraine included in the group that was in that pattern of persecution in the ukraine now the immigrant the board of immigration appeals in this case simply adopted the immigration judge's decision so it's that decision that's before th court for review and the facts are not in dispute because the immigration judge found the applicant to be credible and her testimony to be believable and the the i a e a did as well by adopting her decision and there's further no dispute that the harm she suffered is on account of her religious practices and beliefs i think let me phrase a question or two for you because for me the case boils down to where you draw the line between discrimination or improper conduct short of persecution and when it becomes persecution and the one aspect of the record that was record as i understand it and there was no cross examination on that point and i think the record makes clear that the government supplied interpreter was woefully inadequate and the third should have been more exploration of  she proceeded with her they have to small ceremony so you know in other words that this picture in my mind of a whole bunch of people being drowned and killed and that everybody thing all well and going ahead with the ceremony that that just doesn't make sense in terms of human experience or reality but it sounds like a very confusing situation in the testimony wasn't clear perhaps because of the inadequac government interpreter but and that might have been a good point for cross examination or it might have been evidence to find that testimony not credible there was no such finding by the immigration judge or by the  credible so therefore she is credible both in the interpretation and the ground of people all over and also in the testimony that when that was done everybody just proceeded with the baptism and  the state department report indicates that during the period pre one nine hundred ninety one and her testimony she said that the evangelical christians were considered to be anti communist they refused to during i mean is already even before nine hundred ninety one then the burden shifts to the government and the government can scenes that has persecution even before nine hundred ninety one would require remain and to allow them to try to prove the country conditions have changed fundamentally that no reasonable person would fear a future prosecution and there was no finding by the immigration judge of the b a that they had to carry that burden and so they can see themselves that there would have to be a rematch and under the supreme court said your business was finished in the spring of one nine hundred ninety four there evangelical meetings were disrupted by militia she was told that all the people would be shot and this is the immigration judges summary the evidence that the immigration judge found credible at one time in the middle of the night that was screaming that she would be tortured she would suffer and she would be finished that was the end of ninety three in the beginning of ninety four in the beginning of ninety four a number of  respond to my concern this was before the change of government right and if in fact it or baptismal ceremony you know what dozen people were killed by militia wouldn't that be persecution just assuming that th perhaps that is because there were no drownings at that ceremony i also find it highly implausible that it passes will ceremonially continue following the drowning of multiple people that just seems that is obtain an education to find employment even though it perhaps was not employment of her own choosing after the fall of communism and a dramatic freedom of religion which was allowed in ukraine following the one nine hundred ninety one passage of a law which permitted it she was able to practice her religion or continue to practice their religion because she was in fact never denied the opportunity to practice her religion but she also was able during that time frame post communism to travel abroad on occasions before she came to the united states she went to germany in israel and in neither country did sue prior for asylum she came to the united states in one thousand nine hundred four on a visitor's visa for business and she never returned at that point her family has continued to live and freely practice their religion including the kind of hostile religion in ukraine since street apartment and her fear of returning for future persecution appears to be based on what might happen  some political and economic instability issues in the country as a transition to a new political situation and a new marketing based economy but freedom of religion is one of the issues with which there has been the did personally check the next two thousand and two country reports and it continues to report any area of religion dramatic stability it doesn't know and i will acknowledge that it says that there are some regional differences and regional discrimination against religious practices and persons which has been noted but that these are localized and in fact if you notice in this record even before the fall of communism if the tissue was able to move to a new town in i do believe as we've argued in our brief that on the facts of this case there is sufficient basis for this court to affirm the decision of the board and the immigration judge without a requirement of a remain and i do not believe that the events described and hysterics entire testimony including things like difficulty finding and maintaining employment for choice lower grades in school and or teasing by the children those case involving a craning in jail and there are multiple incidents severe beatings severe and treatment in that case which was entirely different from the facts of off the government's story notwithstanding that's bill i think it's important to maintain a view of the record as a whole to look at not an isolated instance but all of the instance that occurred to her some of the testimony on that case but i think it's really important also to look at exactly every incident that occurred to her and in my view the evidence in this case does not compel the conclusion that the events which occurred to her were anything more than mer all in the government greif page forty six they themselves agree that if there was past persecution at any time better later or not relevant to that question and the record shows that things did get better for a brief period during one thousand nine hundred two and ninety three but the summary from the immigration judge's findings that i read to the court at even without that there has been past persecution based on the assault the interference with the practice of religion and the threats in the persistent finding of a pattern and practice of persecution