however it was in front of the police officer who knew that he was being harmed and who refused to help him and turned away from the petitioner we do believe that because the harm is severe it's fractured spine it's life long consequences does amount to the level of persecution especially because police officer did know about that and did not do anything to help and turned away the immigration judge when deciding on this issue and we can look into their jesus isn't because believe that the immigration judge and the be made a mistake of taking harm suffered on account of him being a member of russian speakers apart from the harm suffered because of his political opinion because the only reason why he was so porting the it let me ask you about the i j is determination about this skirmish that took place with lisa was characterized as a political opponent but then went on to say that perhaps the police didn't do determination it's actually very easy so if you look at the record position or testified that police said we have an order not to interfere the friend in his letter who went to the police for help also say police had ordered not to interfere and turned away from him and then all of a sudden decision we have the language that police had more urgent task of keeping groups apart so less harm would happen and to maintain the line no in the evidence in the record there is a statement that police had orders to maintain the line or to make sure that less harm occurred or was in the record police said we cannot interfere and turned away also the record does not support  the immigration jet because later on you can see that actually the h s file that evidence stating that police and gauged in throwing water and tear gas at protesters so they did and even then taking your side of the facts even if the police decided that they were not going to stick their nose in between these two factions who wanted to harm each other how does that amount to persecution and these is going back to my argument that the whole harm should have been taken together because that was the fear the whole harm from this one single incident no all the that you stated that he suffered in the past because he's a russian speaker or because he supported this coming as party because he suffered one incident of his own harm then he went to the doctor years later doctor refused to help him because he spoke russian and also i do state we don't know what language of doctors spoke we know from the record actually petitioned to testify the conversation happened in russian but then the doctor said i'm not helping you unless you switch to remain young right now so all of those instances of harassment of the market saying russian occupants go home all of that should have been taken together is a doctor or a state doctor it was a public clinic and petitioner that did testify to that also evidence that were provided to the gov to the judge stayed that position is not the only person who was refused medical help because he did not speak russian we also have evidence of other russians being refused medical help for example at the intensive care and all the evidence for example in two thousand nine hundred and twenty eight was announced as a day of freedom from the soviet slash russian occupation and commemoration of the victims of the  and the government prohibited collection of signatures for the election in russian language the parliament committee found that russian speakers are being denied access to justice because they do not speak or mania also the same commission found that health care is affected as well the european commission against reeses invite me to finding that members of the law language minorities in romania and suffer obstacles in access to healthcare so we don't just have cysts social harassment and discrimination that the judge told it will have a lot of instances of the government also treating this group as a disfavored group also ironically the immigration judge himself made number of finding that go to where the russians being a disfavor group however after that he turned around and made a finding to the contrary he stated there is some sort of pattern and practice of persecution against persons who are identified as having russian nationality that he stated it does appear that speaking russian in public business or institutions and so for is his favorite holes or he stated the background evidence doesn't dictate that there is a tension between those who have a more production outlook and those who have a more pro western outlook and finally his statement in addition there can be some tension between persons who speak russian and persons who do not speak russian and despite would do not know where that language came from when never made such statements to be a in fact we did state that yes he did suffer harm and that harm should go to where the evaluation of the individualized risk of future persecution and was stated physical injury that should have been taken as biased of the part of the past harm that he was being harassed at the supermarket for speaking russian he was refused they help by the dr and when he called the state airline they refused to talk to him in russian until his wife stated they were in the united states one standards so that the people were speaking russian from the united states they had no problem talking to them in russian that clearly says the treatment of russian speakers and what is different from treatment of the rest of the population at that they are disfavored group and the immigration judge mainly focused on him losing job and disregarded all other evidence and all of the testimony we do understand that it was a private company however he was discriminated because he didn't speak russian but from our perspective that's not the main event in the case and they may judge and to be a completely centralised their position on him losing job also this case is similar to the started blaming the family for genocide that happened in turkey even though these family had nothing to do they were just kurdish moslem and that's why they were blamed in our case our position as being blamed for the soviet occupation for the russian activity in moldova and outside of moldova even though he has nothing to do with that he is not an ethnically russian he is a crane however his main language of communication is russian also would do believe that the judge in this case should have and be a later on should have taken everything that happened in perspective of history and geopolitical situation which he did not and it was all in the record for example soviet union occupied moldova from russian forces and ukrainian forces and all of these happening around the petitioner and around what's happening so of course the society in moldova is not blind they see what russia is doing they respond to that and isn't ten it has been worsening because the communist party lost power in two thousand and nine i didn't say in the beginning i apologise but i would like to reserve the remainder of the time for the contract you ma please the court excuse me my name is tony pod injure and i represent the government in this case to briefly circle back to one of the questions from the bench your comments about nd guessing respondent we just respectfully reiterate our point in our brief that we're operating under the substantial evidence standard it's a very deferential standard with respect to findings of fact secondly with respect to the disfavored group analysis it's not of nothing alone to be a member disfavor group you have to have some indicia that you'll be individually targeted and this case petitioner did not carry that burden of proof in this court can look to its precedents book published unpublished i point to the  ovah case and cited case that we cited in our brief that looked at the pattern in practice against people in soviet russia former soviet republics that said subject to your question honor we would submit in the brief and you will the remainder of our time you have one question and it's a hypothetical question if a pro democracy demonstrator in hong kong with knowledge that he was about to be arrested and potentially tried in mainland china for exercising what appear to be democratic rights would that person have a colorful basis for seeking asylum it would be fact specific as far as in i can just respond your question bro you don't to bring it closer to this case this individual actively participated in demonstrations including when there was violence between police officers and demonstrators use of force on both sides the local police allowing pro democracy demonstrators to be armed rd persons armed it's veteran other words a situation not unlike what the petitioner faced in this case would that be a colorable basis it could your honor it would again be facts specific they would have to be specific to that demonstrator you know i'm hesitant in generic terms to say that you know participating in a pro democracy protest by itself would entitle one  certainly would be a factor and it would be the finder of fact the immigration court in this hypothetical case would have to look at the specifics take testimony but that there have been cases where there have been people granted  the basis of political activity to include participating in protest but it's a case by case basis thank you thank you i would like to address a standard that was mentioned by the agency attorney so even though we're disputing what standards should be applied here dyno or substantial evidence we do believe that it doesn't really matter for our case we do believe that even under the center that is suggested by the government will still win because the judge made such findings that completely contradict the evidence in front of him with no logic and no support to his finding romania and then russia liberated or occupied depending on how you look at it that territory and so in ninety one they became independent nd the languages are completely different ukrainian and russian both slavic  romanian is roman language so it's completely different and also in that case the petition didn't suffer any personal harm never claimed any personal harm and just claimed here because of their treatment of russian speakers in ukraine and finally become fully in ukraine is a very recent so the treatment of russian speakers there will be different because it's based on the military conflict with russia and next a sion and ukraine before then they did not have tensions and remain it had tensions ever since before russian empire thank you thank you both for the argument this morning and offer also for the briefing that case of course act versus far is submitted we have tours for esau and niccolo check the cat national casualty are submitted on the briefs and we're joined for the morning