that car does a fine thank the supreme court held that the show well founded fear an applicant did not need to show there was more likely than not they would be prosecuted if returned to his home country rather all that is have a rather opaque country report that talks about i guess it's some instances but the i j a seem to discredit the human rights watch report which had much more detailed and specific information about persecution and difficulties what are we supposed to do in terms of that that the guerrillas were aware of his political opinion a few things wrong or first of all mr ponce testified credibly in the record to sixty six six ninety three and six ninety four that he does not believe in violence that he that if they were aware that he was a pacifist then we get them to a different question and then we get through was that a motive or with the part of a mixed motive but the first step has to be that they're aware that he generally rose to the level of persecution the definition of persecution is the infliction of suffering or harm in a way regarded as offensive would seems to be a different standard in this court which you know if he used the alternative language in his decision if you take it to cases where the principles of what he was saying were very clear now as far as pattern of practice in disparate groups that has never been contended by the fourth the sliding scale and i mean what's the general conditions in the country are yes and that's something that sixty five in the immigration judge does cite to hocks for the principle that what he had suffered i alleged mistreatment in salvador did not rise to the level of persecution and he did cite for that and that's because he was alleging only verbal harassment and emotional trauma opposing counsel started to machinery in their brief to  stand for the principle that this would stand for persecution and he says materially distinguishable if you look at that case they're showing that there were models death threats there is violence to family members there was vandalism there was economic harm there was emotional trauma so yes under certain never made to the agency as it has not been exhausted and therefore this court me not review it at this point he argued only well first of all this court has found that homosexuality is a particular social group so he has made that claim so his claim of persecution is based on his political of future persecution i think we're kind of splitting hairs here to say he didn't argue well what he has argued is a country conditions so you can argue he's argued is that the country conditions reports show  i guess sort of he is arguing essentially he's not using the words pattern and practice i understand it he's essentially getting it that however that's exactly why the country reports were insufficient there was not a widespread violence or severe persecution of escalation i think his entire decision indicates where i mean you have to the immigration judge is doing this as an oral decision and so sometimes it's a little bit disjointed in terms of the order and the sequence in which the ideas are expressed in the decision but throughout the decision you can see that he's clearly expressing that he reviewed the evidence and what was mixed about it was the fact that you have this gay rights group emerging entre amigos and so you have that you have the first gay pride parade taking place is not page one fifty five one fifty nine you have the first gay pride parade in two thousand and two page one fifty seven a liberal policy towards the day the gay community page one sixty three noted all of what he and what he didn't know was all the evidence put in the news article otherwise that document specific violence so that to me was very prevalent because that combined with human rights watch projects  materials plus all the other documented evidence doesn't give you at least ten percent chance of persecution based on search warrant because there were specific inciden mention and to the extent that they tried to say that this was bigger or more organized or broader it was unsupportive and so he notes that on page sixty seven for example on page one ninety eight one of the one of the articles says all these killings point well they didn't support this with anything what are they what are they basing this information on it was sort of a blanket statement and still he looks at the incidences where they actually go to describe particular situations and in those cases the rest of the evidence says well there are there does exist some killings there does exist you know some harassment there are instances of violence so much do you need to get ten percent of you that people killing gays and trans gender fear and the fact is that the police were providing protection to the entre amigos group and this was again how it became sort of next because on the one hand you have these threats you have you know something along those lines and then you have the police coming in and the government offering round the clock protection to this gay rights group and so therefore you have this you know you can't stay actually any torture because if the government is attempting to protect the group then there is no government actor involved and these would be private individual therefore that would be perpetrating isolated crimes and that would certainly not be well founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground and i just wanted to point out with the bromfield that that is what's distinguishable in that there was specifically saying a widespread violence and that is used in the bromfield decision of what the department of state purport was noticing in this case there is only incidences in existence and widespread and serious and this one piece to thirteen when they're talking about the homosexuals however they use no such language and that was the difference in brumfield which which had to do with homosexuals in jamaica again the country report is the most compelling evidence