except for the burden of proof or the standard of proof when it comes to whether the government is unwilling or unable to protect  incidences here but it's the never i mean i just don't see widespread abuse going on in the netherlands similar to what we see or even the allegations that are made in other countries  i'd be interested if you think i mean if we say we agree that the evidence suggests that maybe they didn't have the police didn't handle this appropriately in this individual case is that enough for your quiet to succeed or do you need to show something more than that concerned he's testing when he should have been sufficient if it was credible and specific was sufficient to question and it was credible the question is whether he demonstrated that the testimony which was created that the police were less than helpful at the scene and perhaps were not super energetic afterwards but they did go forward and there was a prosecution and then we have this kind a whole about what happened to the prosecution we never actually found out so there are some cryptic statement about there was an inadequate statement by the i statement by the victim and whether it was in this will because it was he was i mean the for the problem is perhaps that they are here they're not there and how could they testify i don't know what the problem was but it's a very unusual case an in court it doesn't matter whether the prosecution afterwards does goes out of his way to help people if the record isn't clear if the witnesses weren't able to testify i mean at the make sure that the that the ambulance is going to take him to the hospital i mean i have not seen any even in countries where very bad things happen but i have a question about that ye did testify that in the original police report he said that he was taken in an ambulance fast he wasn't but he said and i read the place report last night well the police report was wrong and a couple of different things you agree there is in the place report i have seen that the police report was not completely accurate which is another problem actually but anyway how are you disputing the police report just is i don't see that systematic evidence even if we get to the point that we said this individual was not treated properly in this instance that can't be enough to warrant asylum it has to be the i saw what went on after that there were some inflamed you know emotions on both sides you have a lot of people who are defending the united states and a lot of people who you know also in the light of and eleven were were frustrated with with immigrants but that was sort of short lived and that seemed to be one of the examples that you were lied on for the systematic discrimination as you put it and so i would be interested in what other evidence there is because we can't it can't be enough to get asylum just because one individual was negligently treated assuming that you know giving you the benefit of the doubt it has to be on the name of the person was hinrichs he was coming back from a concert and he's he's from aruba so he looks obviously different are the reports from state department or n g o s that and and racism but it's not to that that way and it seems to me that the more interesting point you're making is that there are layers of the government and that that the government or the national government not yes are not doing their job that's the question and then the but then the next question is is this case an example of that or at least was the b i a and the i j unreasonable in thinking that it wasn't given that in fact tried to call the a trainee and i spoke to him and he said all they could go after now he's the money tree damage and he said if they have property damage my clients were almost killed he was he received a concussion to his head and then by the way so we're talking about systematic racism in the country they went to the hospital and even though he had a concussion he was released from the hospital that night he didn't even stay in the ho working and then he said i believe that even if this case this in court it's going to be there for at least five years actually when we went back when we went back to court after i received the fact that after all these  the problem cases are very successful cases are lost for a whole variety of reason discrimination is just one of them and i don't think it's fair to suggest that you know just because the case looks anomalous that the only conclusion that we can reach is that it was discrimination look more fundamentally do you have any other cases either in this court or anywhere any other courts where there's been a court fight mean that the netherlands is unwilling the government ban for the government please the court so the issue we have here under the statute is whether or not the government of netherlands was unable or unwilling to control the persecutors whether what we mean by the government of security guards and the allegation is they knew they knew them and they dealt with them and they came to the scene and they didn't do anything and the sky is lying on the ground looking dead and they don't do anything about that and they go back and they don't and they responsive and not discriminatory who is the government for purposes of our statute at that point i think your honor you raise an interesting issue in it and i actually there's two it raises two questions one is whether or  cahoots with this group well i'm not saying they are but i want to get a conceptual answer cho who is the government i think the conceptual answer is that it's the petitioners burden to show that they netherlands is not actively trying to eliminate and discrimination and persecution of this kind and that seems to be the case the question is if they can't if the lower levels of the government were demonstrated to be doing it and they were unable to control them i would assume that would come within the statute even if the national government was not was was actively trying to bring it out i think here it's important to cling to the case law and i j both these agency decisions i j in particular did a great job canvassing the relevant case law and if you look at michoud i think that took place in germany that was a case where the position it was found by this court the petitioner did show that the government of germany was unwilling or unable to protect him but in that situation there was at what was the government maybe getting to this but was that was an individual case about one individual who is not protected by the government and there was was there systematic evidence of either a well there wasn't there was a pattern or practice evidence but what there was was there was strong evidence that the police didn't pursue the case and that was shown to be enough and in contrast there's no i didn't find any cases where there was actually a court case a conviction well that's not held here i mean that's the problem here there statute means one instance of a government hacked or one police officer to be anough in that specific case or do you have to show something more widespread well i think that the framework is set out by the statute in order to show past persecution you have to show that there was unwillingness or inability on the part of the government to act and there are cases that show both where it's not a systematic government issue like  in the inability sphere you have a free a where that has there's one police precinct and they have one gun in the police precinct and they and the petitioner and the alien in that instance shows i think it's ghana that the government was unable to protect him but even then you've got you've got sort of a pattern practice by the whole precinct what i'm wondering is can you go down and say i mean here the only evidence appears to be at best that these officers in this particular circumstance look the other way or perhaps worse than that they they actually you know didn't pursue it or may have even hid the hideous to some degree or sometimes it could be enough well i think the issue is that in this instance it wasn't enough they brought the case that they so that is so your position there's no as long as the government brings the case that's the end of the story well it wouldn't necessarily always be you could i suppose have a sham trial but we don't have any evidence of that here we simply don't the petitioner hasn't put forward any evidence at the trial without certainly us to unwilling and perhaps as to unable but certainly as to unwilling the fact that there is an entity of the government that is unwilling is sufficient for the statute doesn't have to be the government national government or systematic going i think your honor the case law is clear that that can be that government's position in this case appears to be that you know one instance can be enough for past persecution so then does that how does the role end to fear the fear of future persecution a framework is very clear and judge and outlined it if you show past persecution if you show that the government was unwilling or unable then you you get you get your ticket punched and you get to go to a well founded fear with the burden shifting to the government that isn't the case here and it's critically important so if you don't have your ticket punched in order to show well founded fear you have to show either that you would be targeted or that there's a pattern or practice systematic in that so systematic comes in on the future even if it doesn't come in on that the pass exactly as it comes in in the future the we've completed the concepts here  practice or could be that there are unwilling to protect these people targeting right then you would have to show that you have then the position of the alien in that situation not to show that there's a well founded fear that there's a good chance that she's going to be he's going to be target not because they're part of  ground that's difficult to show here because as the agency found the family remains unharmed so and then there and there's no fresh threat so we have hospital but their explanation for that is that those people didn't complain to the police and not only that but their impaired and not very good interesting lee enough i was rereading the brief though the briefs this morning your honor and petitioners counsel make highlights the fact that the daughter has pursued the netherlands and yet she hasn't been harmed or targeted so that is evidence that cutting against the likelihood of of individual targeting that that's a question of proof as opposed to prejudice so it may also be i mean hypothetically that western governments don't have as much systematic persecution that's what i mean your honor is and myself evidence and proof and i think it's really important to highlight here that the agency did an unusually fine job of thoroughly canvassing the evidence and i think that you agree with the position that there's there's no other case law in our court or any other court to suggest that the netherlands or a ok i could take into parts that the national government of the netherlands is a person is persecuting these report the crime so it's different in a different framework when you're not but ok but then go also well i'll let you address that case but separately the localities within the netherlands sort of judge president's point of hey maybe the national government is trying but we've got little pockets that aren't complying is there evidence or are there any court findings in any other court including our own that that's going on in the netherlands somewhere i didn't see anything i only the only dutch case i looked at was was regimes that which cuts the other way where they look at country condition evidence and the agency finds that there's no pattern or practice or likelihood of  so it's very hard to do any kind of survey of that kind because we know what court cases say but court cases are only the ones who pulls and i'm always worried about that that we're getting a misimpression as to what is actually in  every direction including how much how often asylum is granted because we don't see those cases it goes to a policy question your honor of if this is the best way to adjudicate these types of claims but that's neither here nor there and it only means that i ask the question of whether there's been any cases really you can't do it because you don't know what is happening in what thirty or sixty percent of the cases but the i will say that if anyone can decide  fairly it's the agency they're in the situation to look at the evidence they see so many cases those immigration judges they look through that country condition evidence they're much more able than we are at this level and but that's what about the the same speakers do they have access to any of that could is that something that they could even call out or they just have to rely on the age asylum seekers have as in this instance there they have in him let's look at this case if we just had the court case if we had the judgment from the netherlands it would help us out but you're looking you're asking about countrywide condition evidence the best source of that is the state department report and the and court cases in this circuit have said that the best judges of those of that country condition evidence is the agency and at the agency level they have the time they tend to be fairly pollyannish so they rely on what's on paper and not necessarily what's on the ground i understand your honor and it's frustrating and it is frustrating and it's also unwieldy to go through that record but i think that argues in favor of leaving it to the agency which is what the statute does that well by that i mean at the end of the day it's the asylum seekers burden it is their brain and that you know they may be hamstrung by it but that it's their burden if they don't believe in the state department's information is correct it's their burden too but in this instance they had an expert who was apparently an expert  and he did testify twice his testimony was not that specific i suppose but he did to some degree contest the state department's fairly rosy view and then it's within the court's jurisdiction to say that that the record the record evidence doesn't support a substantial evidence finding but i don't think that's true in this case if you look at the expert opinion look at the country reports you look at the thorough agency decision i don't think that would be a while as well and i but that isn't a part of the problem just speaking to it generally that when you talked about substantial evidence it's going to be pretty hard for an asylum seeker to meet that in the face of a government report because how are you i mean it best you're going to present conflicting evidence but but you're not going to show i understand your honor and i understand the source of your sympathy but i would doubt that if petitioner in this case had met his burden of showing that there was past persecution and that the government was actually unwilling if it were a case like a missionary or dovi holder which is the case in russia where you have evidence  specific piece of evidence that the police said do this yourself this is your problem we don't have that in this case we don't have solid evidence that the government was unwilling or unable to help and the statutes very clear that in that instance the the burden stays with the petitioner in the future for your context ok your time is half thank you very much you two minutes are about all your of your time willing that's the question now in my brief i discussed also what technically by the way which is the un convention the un convention talks about effective protection the standard should be if the government is able to give effective protection because the protection just bringing a lawsuit in court which ultimately becomes an acquittal because from the later investigation was an inadequate investigation we don't know another was there and they knew they found out who the people were and they apparently got enough evidence to get a prosecutor to go forward and the prosecutor won florida and so we have no idea that the investigation was in fact inadequate i mean the only piece of speaks to me frankly is that they you know walked away and if somebody unconscious on the ground that doesn't seem like what a police officer should be doing but leaving that but that just could work the other way the fact that the police even though they had every single piece they had to with this is on the scene they had a family under scene the the one of them ok unconscious on the  so is it that we have in two thousand and thirteen we had eight hundred and fifty thousand moslems in the country of the netherlands and only there were about eighty six cases that were prosecuted