the extent of the things that were done to him being sufficient for being persecution but the issue that troubles me is maybe the same one that is bothering to because and ski and that yea there doesn't seem to be evidence that anyone said anything that would lead him to believe or other than his own belief which may be sincere but is that sufficient to prove someone else a state of mind that is where we have to testified to was that there were no concrete charges but he was told he was being held for initializing gypsy gatherings that's his own statement there were no concrete charges according to him what we do know is that he was he because he's well your honor the reason the plea showed up at the apartment was because the neighbors complained of loud noise after midnight that's why they came why they showed up in according to petition or that's why they entered his apartment and they were looking for drugs as well so there are there is substantial evidence in the record came and they did more than say hold down the party i was just melson has pointed out they said you know you're romas and you don't deserve to live so even if the initial call was completely legitimate and unrelated that actually upon answering the call change the calculus necessarily change the calculus no your honor and this the record does contain evidence that it was but the police showed up and arrested suspicion of drugs that is what the records state that's what petitioner stated that he that's why the police showed up they thought he had drugs and he said he didn't but that's a legitimate police activity to come to somebody's house and search for drugs so whether you can do the course should focus on the fact that it's whether substantial evidence supports the immigration judge's decision there could be other reasons that the record could support another conclusion because the record supports immigration to this conclusion being true i know this court does your honor but i do not believe that would require an immigration judge to go through every line of testimonies and i believe this i don't believe this i believe what the immigration judges usually do is say overall i believe that you're trying to truth these things happen does not mean if they accept every single thing you cannot expect an immigration judge to do that without going well in my life the testimony so what you have here is somebody who's saying well if we showed up they looked for drugs they called me names i didn't have any drugs we have his version of the story what we do have clearly is a plea showed up on a legitimate mission of criminal activity there may have been some comments made that he was a gypsy so the the state department reports support that  commonly commit crimes there and i believe the nick of six percent of the population and they commit over fifty percent of the crime so it's a loss of documentation on the record that reveals severe prejudice against the gypsies especially by law enforcement do show is that yes there is persecution and harassment of roma gypsies it didn't they do not support that there is widespread persecution or any persecution at all unfortunately the roma gypsies seem to pick that more often for crimes than any other segment of the population so they injuries he said no i wasn't visible there was no he didn't say they didn't hit me in the face but he said he said i didn't suffer any injuries so i was not injured during any of these but before you run out of time i want to ask you the same sort of theoretical question that i a happened but for his second arrest there's no evidence that was on account of the first arrest he was walking in an area and it's after midnight with no idea this occasion area where a robbery had occurred in the police picked him up on the street and picked him up it was not on account for not handling his papers well on suspicion of committing a robbery so one would assume that they were trying to decide if you actually had committed the robbery which is common in this country as well where we pick up suspects and you know we don't know whether they've done it it may take a few days tipsy the question was whether the officers knew he was a gypsy in my question perhaps at some point they knew he was was leaving you know he was if he when he came in every day to register well he says he doesn't look like a gypsy and unless they said are you a gypsy every jammy know he never said it came up the only time he said it came up on the first  was only on the first restaurant stuff we take the first arrest out and the second arrest we can show this record amply supports the second arrest was not because of the first arrest it was a completely separate account and the second and third there's no indication that anyone ever caught said were a gypsy and called him names the question is he was arrested three times and even though the second didn't relate to the first the question was whether the officials knew he was a gypsy you're on the record does not support that for the second or third that even if it could go either way if the evidence supports what the immigration judge found this court has still called the immigration judge's decision unless it's compelled to do how they're wise and here there's certainly supports an inference that the immigration judge made at the p and because the abuses are widespread in the prison population apparently it's an equal opportunity event there to mistreat prisoners so roma unfortunately are mistreated in prison more often than not roma because there's more of them in prison that there's no evidence that