therefore all of the evidence presented must be considered to be undisputed the evidence from the first incident that occurred in this case was the petitioner and family members traveling by car from their region of the country through another portion dominated by the mo for a funeral after during that trip while they were in the church where the not so i must say scuse me the petitioner and her family members were pulled over stopped by the other tribal group members  they were questioned rapidly about where they belonged with that they were members of the opposition party and there was an attempt to drag the petitioner sister from the trying to lock the door closed the door lock the car is struck by a rock injuring her arm and causing blood flow they did manage to escape and upon arriving in nairobi themselves and it's difficult really to know for sure who they were we can only look at the evidence as raising an inference that these incidents are result of the initial contact and the reporting of the incident incident occurred shortly after she left there were did occur after she left because she learned about it through communications while she was already in the united states she while and they're close to a whole lot of record but what was what was put into the record right out of the hearing was found to be very credible no one challenge what she said so the question is this when someone is in the in an incident is the one where it's very clear that she's identified as someone opposed to this group this marks a group they stop her this is the strongest answer fact i find in a past persecution could be found based on  the documentation or in the state department reports and then all of a sudden we have a genocide in rwanda resulting in over half million people being killed in a matter of months and then persons later saying well we didn't really know  this following occur and she said as soon as we really after reporting that it's a crime in nairobi she said and they don't like people to report that that's correct there different places a different things in the transcript of the record as i read it was that the occurred on the way to the funeral was an area not you know you know where you have ethnic clashes it's hard to say as the social group or clerical it's all pretty much the same thing but it's of terrible conflict result to to find that are reasonable objectionably reasonable fear of persecution exists in this case in fact she's already been targeted and injured as a result of that persecution result of an injury to her and the breaking of the windows to the car occupants of the car her family didn't say who they were because they didn't want to identify themselves by their accent possibly but there's no indication that say if she stayed in nairobi that she would be that that that anyone has any revenge grudge against her particularly that she just happened to be in the wrong place wrong time in unfortunately she did die from the violence but since then her family has remained on harms in kenya and there's no indication that if the family stays out of the area where there was this violence going on or any sort of similar type of violence that they incident because you can understand him or he didn't know he didn't recognize that people were throwing stones at the car you know he didn't mention that specifically but he did state that she was injured which was a result of the stoning so clearly he knew that the cards don't and the fact that  i think that what the immigration church might grant where he might have gone wrong here is thinking that they're just you know maybe the judge demanded that the persecutor write a note we are mass i we are persecuting you because you we just can't expect our persecutor to do that we it's hard pressed to put our heads into the minds of the people these tribes but they know each other they can see each other they can tell from the a start dragging him out of the car that's how in reality something like this takes place now if that wasn't enough their petition or her family actually increase their risk of a repeat of this kind of behavior by reporting it to the police so under the asylum law i'm glad that we do not have to rely only on withholding of removal because one of the asylum are all we have to show is that this individual next case on the calendar is not right versus ashcroft that case has been submitted on the briefs the last case on the argument calendar is i'm not sure how to pronounce that kind of wire vs barnhar