petition or suffered was on account of one of the five a numerati grounds if we can establish those two things i think the rest of the case has been proven that this man suffered atrocious past persecution in the form of being beaten threatened his wife suffered a miscarriage family members disappeared and the man who smuggle them out of the country was eventually executed regarding credibility the immigration judge denied in large part because the respondent expounded upon his pro se application for asylum the judge characterize application and provide the truthful history of the case then you're adding information that wasn't in the initial application and that's not allowed and if you fail to do that then you're guilty of incompetence of coun the so long and remember that this petitioner testified in a plausible credible and emotional manner and in light of those facts the fact that he added information to the application shouldn't be used to penalize  or their right to see a professional have the taxes done correctly likewise in this case this petition should not be finalized for that the second reason the judge is not on credibility was because he said that there was no there is isn't it placed at our level where they were in status at the time they're usually out of status when they make the application but isn't it perfectly fair for an immigration judge to when they ask what about the v so they got you in this country to expect that ok in other countries in middle eastern countries it's very common to use a passport office for agency which knows like a notary public or legal consultant who prepares the application if that's true but in the beginning monaghan of the united states and in the beginning he does admit that he was paying the police for protection and we have to look at the entire context and circumstances of this petitioner he was living in and he says by anywhere that was common practice and it didn't necessarily comport with his religious views but in order to save himself his business and to eventually leave the country he did pay government officials did he say and he has written application and then below that he wrote what he had suffered and that was all done by himself when he when he retained counsel counsel executed a complete detail were his petition words no no drama and i can show you in the record i don't have the page memorized but if you look at the application for asylum i think it's the third or fourth page which a lack of country conditions which showed that that in particular are persecuted and i don't think that that i'm not going to go too much for that but basically the respondent or the petitioner provided proof that persons are persecuted discriminated in harassed on account of their religion the fact that it doesn't specifically mention the vastus religion i think is not relevant in light of the otherwise credible testimony the big question in this case is whether this persecution was on account of one of the five grounds now this court has recognized in many circumstances that circumstantial evidence of a mixed mode of persecution is allowable and that's what we have in this case the petition was paying the government for protection when they learned of his religious convictions i e he was compelled by his faith to support his church through money and donations they said leave your religion and give us that money it wasn't just give us the money it your god leave your religion so baptist you betrayed us by failing to comply with their demands it was a significant component and let's look at the overall circumstances this is the government  criminal elements or corrupt officials want to exploit a person for money it's logical to assume that they're going to exploit religion as they did in this circumstance you're down the minute and you know that you want to see the yes and you think you because we did agree to terms of substantial evidence but i think you can parents ethically rephrase that in this way through dust and extortion scheme  extortion was ongoing and it was only after the victim well along the way expressed her opinion about the politics of the insurgents and they acted in regard to that in a way that had nothing to do with extortion we have nothing in here that this case by contrast has nothing to do with insurgencies civil conflict  years ago that president putin quoted as saying something to the effect of never confuse bribery with corruption i mean i've seen repeatedly in the papers for example off but i've never heard a governor or the president of united states say wealthy people the never confused bribery with corruption no you probably wouldn't unless stuart listening to a twenty three of our brief we cite to the court three four five examples in the humphrey report which confirm that local criminal elements in league with rogue policemen and agents make life difficult for people with money businessmen are but it doesn't mean that the government is sponsoring or not or unable to control i mean that's that's the issue isn't it i mean again returning to the through the new people's army analogy yes i'm having some difficulty seeing the difference and perhaps you can you s what we see here what the fact finder saw was  attempts by the extortionist who overcome scruples which came along the way or not at the beginning in their two facets here one was protection money which was not a problem until it got to be it was the kickback thing that's where the scruples really kicked in because that he saw he has as against principles but well here guy because it means the money that they want is being divided with his church and it means that he's reluctant to go into the second phase of this thing because of religious  fact finder didn't see it that way and it was it was just something they had to overcome now why with why does it become religious persecution because it pops up in the middle  know about how about a reference to the record ok the corrupt government officials were satisfied with the amount of money that he was given until they learned that their the devotion of his faith which required him to provide money to his  line upon now and this case is akin to corrupt government officials who have been receiving graft from let's say a mormon church and then turning to the merchant and saying we want you to sell alcohol and cigarettes in violation of the most basic tenets of your religion and your failure to do so will result in you being beaten and harms i mean this gentleman was asked to violate the most basic tenets of his religion to the commandments at least