at least the determination was was a benefit to fijians of indian descent so i'm not sure that the whatever was encountered before it rises to a sufficient level nor th familiar with i think we get news of that so it's true but it's also true that it's not the most unsubtle country in the world as well basically the consequences of that most recent one not clear yet but it's clear that  persecution and the government here felt about the presumption well that if an individual let's just make an abstract for the law outside the facts of this case if an individual has a passport so that he could freely leave to a place like the u k and doesn't avail or self of that opportunity doesn't call into question just how serious the alleged persecution was no persecution isn't any mistreatment or  hardship it's supposed to be something more extreme and if you got the chance to go and don't and i didn't see a real explanation as to why it was that she couldn't leave because she was caring for somebody something like that doesn't cast a persecution in the past or by showing that chances are good reason to fear future persecution so our position is that missing suffered persecution if you stayed in the country for an additional period of time it's not related to mistreatment was and whether it rises to the level of persecution that's a question that the vijay is entirely passed on and the i j a says it doesn't sound to him doesn't appear to him to be sufficiently serious to qualify as past persecution you are right if past persecution is found then there is a presumption but for some of the first hurdle i j says will the fact that she stuck around suggests it wasn't all that bad the past persecution and that undermines the subjective aspect that we're talking  they come as soon as possible so all of this comes back to she stayed one of the big components with being there when the house and who knows what happened to the house your honor that may be a main reason for a person to stay in the country even  persecution in light of the changes in the future government i'm really not sure i see a year specific fred that she is going to be persecuted if she goes back or your honor once present the evidence that's on an individualized basis about the particular i've to be honest i don't understand what you're saying how it relates to an issue in the case i don't hear the government trying to say if there's a finding of past persecution we're still going to look country report so it lets you have something else to speak to i don't know that i'm confident that what you're saying right now doesn't matter because there's something else you'd like to speak to well it's this case this course of course case law the government has to his continued presence in fiji despite having a u k passport and country conditions in fiji at the time of her asylum hearing did not support a finding that she had an objective the reasonable well founded fear future persecution the respect of the daughters petition for a view she was properly considered a citizen and national of the united kingdom actually admitted during her removal proceedings she has never lived in fiji or shown a right to residency in that country and therefore she was jubal for asylum from fiji in her own right accordingly because the mother's the mother's application is properly denied for them or the daughter cannot assert any rights under the child sas protection act therefore these petitions for of you should be petitioners claim of past persecution is important to know that she has not claimed to have been physically harmed by ethnic feagin is any time during her residence in fiji and stuck her grandmother's house where she was staying with relatives was twice robbed by ethnic feige ans most notably however during one of these two robberies petitioners male relatives successfully fought back and drove the attackers from the house now the record is unclear whether this two robberies there is no evidence that her family did not continue to receive income from the sugarcane farm which they continue to hold until the seized in one thousand nine hundred four the only other incident titian experienced long fiji was the interruption of a temple cases where the courts found past persecution speak to multiple stabbings multiple beatings ten to fifteen robberies are the complete inability to have an income and the experiences here just do not rise to that level during the ponce argument the fact that petitioner continued to reside in fiji following the two robberies at her grandmother's house notwithstanding the fact that she possessed a valid multiple entry visa to go to the united kingdom where her children were residing does undercut her claim that the experiences in fiji were so severe and egregious that they rose to a level past persecution as immigration judge noted on page ten of this decision the court does not understand why if the situation was so terrible that she equality in the ethnic composition of the government more importantly the constitution created an independent human rights commission which had a number of racial and ethnic a quality issues therefore should petitioner be deported back to fiji and she  experiences harassment discrimination from ethnic teachings are the human rights commission would obviously investigate those claims the constitution also guaranteed to say to you the same thing that we said the petitioners councils were familiar with the record so you  order to arrive derivative saddest because she was partly denied she doesn't have any protections for them or if she presents no evidence showing that the government was obligated to continue her case until the judy cation other mother's asylum application before decid but she didn't leave the country says leave the country you killed and i don't leave can be inferred that maybe i don't believe the threat is serious not necessarily on their i don't offer any other reason for sticking around i mean i think that's the core problem in regard to