experience harm that rose to the level of persecution or that the motive for inflicting the harm was not to overcome the protective trait gabrielle argues that she cannot return to mexico for three other reasons st pattern of practice to prevail with a pattern or practice of harm to the petitioners protected group of l g b persons which is lesbian gay bisexual transgender persons she must show a systematic pervasive people with legal right the immigration judge the board of immigration appeals and the department of homeland security seem to think that the existence of this legislation proves there is no persecution that is a d by the government or that no prosecutorial pattern of practice is even occurred however the mexican government is not off the hook from the pattern of practice argument simply because of the passage of p government after making those laws may truly believe that there should be no violence toward gay people but government after they are targets within forcing both watts and assuring protection to l t p people seem to tolerate violence toward l g b t people very well there is a documented high level of impunity for many human rights violations but particularly high impunity for violence against the l d p community because of mis categorization and onto reporting of crimes against gays there is every reason to believe that the reported level of violence does not reflect the true pervasive systematic and police and the gay community a choice that the government is making that gay community should be taken seriously as interviews in the safe environment so that the crime levels are extremely high that six of ten people reporting and a survey of nearly five hundred new one at least one murder l g b t person in the past three years there is a stronger pattern of violence against where the petition movement cited and it despite the existence of laws witness good care is experienced very menacing concept from the police she saw her friend being pawed by a police officer and people act and what they do and don't do is in control of the government which doesn't do enough to deter violence against gays all of these arguments concerning the lack of impunity for criminal violence to l t p people the m that have to show that there is a deliberate imposition by the government of severe economic disadvantage which basically deprive her of the essential device there are dishonest that prohibit employment discrimination and we know that general conditions of crime and poverty are not a basis for asylum or that employment discrimination by itself is an insufficient plane for economic persecution however according to the state department you're into that fine at this point ok well i just want to briefly say that again this issue of the economic persecution is not  employment discrimination scalp is persecutory but rather that the outcome is persecutory and it is for this petitioner in this environment she can't compete for well paying jobs and he's going to be discriminated against for menial jobs that she would happily take and there again is documentation for that on the record there's also persecution by proxy the concern there is not that that her daughter who attempted suicide four and a half months before the individual hearing that she committed tried to commit suicide because she was bullied on account of her mother being a lesbian that isn't that isn't the argument it's that she had a very self destructive response to being bullied and we think of this in terms of possibility three hundred not probabilities this this is an asylum case after a while and we assert that it is possible there's that it's not speculative to conclude that diana to lead a would be bullied in a conservative and homophobic environment work a mother would want to live as she has every right to live in an persecution the court i'm sorry the board determined that the petition had not shown past persecution on two grounds st that the press in this case did not rise to the level of persecution a where this court said that want to persecute or utters in that case an ethnic slur during a counter that appears to be motivated by other factors the slur does not necessarily prove a nexus to protect the ground the reasoning there applie center a priest for said this to constitute a pattern of practice persecution must be extreme and this court has explained that the reason that the court of plies such a high standard to pattern or practice claims is because once the court finds that agree taken in mexico to improve the situation certainly the information and evidence that points to this troubling and there are certain much more work to do in mexico but again the standard that this court applies to a pattern or practice of discrimination claims is a very high persecution we would emphasize that this court has had make their number of cases that show economic persecution the applicant must demonstrate that there has been a deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage to