the conclusion of this part of my argument thank you going to this case is about three issues the first is whether responded has set forth a case showing that he has a well founded fear of persecution response petition or would concede that the record evidence would not compel a finding of past persecution but we believe that the record evidence would compel a finding of a well founded fear of persecution mr duchenne left armenia because he realized quickly that expressing any political opinion in really created a nation of armenia created a serious risk of persecution he realized this because he experienced it himself he had more than two encounters although two were quite memorable and are well documented in the records his political activities although short lived were neither incredible nor were they in consequential and we believe that his experiences are well documented in the record in the records that currently exist concerning armenia the two thousand and sixteen two thousand and fourteen reports all talk about  the systematic corruption lack of transparency and the fact that there's really no ability for political opposition or even peaceful demonstration to go forward in armenia the this court ruled that the ninety six and ninety eight armenia country reports did in fact support of finding a political persecution in armenia being objective the reasonable and we submitted have a well founded fear of future persecution matters a lot whether whether there's past persecution because it alters the burden of proof yes yeah if there's past persecution it's presumed that there's a well founded fear of future persecution but the burden is reversed in the absence of past persecution and i found this case difficult more on the issue of past persecution than on the other issues that you've raised because it seems to fall somewhere in between our past cases discussing just how bad things have to be before we  compelled to call them persecution and i didn't find any of our past cases really all that helpful yes you're in fact but to that point  was beaten while he was sitting in the park i believe that with his girlfriend it's not clear to me where the individuals who beat him random individuals were the law enforcement it's not clear what  precisely and it seems like it might be important so do you know or does the record reflect your honor we believe that the record reflects that because they were out demonstrating it was people who were in opposition to the demonstrations that were going on goes important to judge graber just highlight in terms of the if we are going to look at the at the past persecution is is there anything in the record as wasn't clear to me that he was detained by police and interrogated it doesn't appear that way but i wanted to be sure and i wanted to make sure i asked you so you know he was attacked and chased but not not seriously  these reports the state department reports of the conditions in the country that might indicate that individuals are in opposition to the government are at risk of persecution and you mentioned that your client had a very brief membership and was active in this that's not dosh not party but for the past twenty five years he has not been active even from afar he as he said been living a quiet life all i saw on the record was that he said well if you went back to armenia he'd have to speak out is that enough to show that he would be subject to a risk of future process persecution when that's all we have that would indicate that maybe he would involve himself again in some type of political dissent your honor i believe that the fact that mr de sean did engage in political dissent while he was there would be indicative that he would do it again i don't believe that the fact that he has been fortunate enough to live here since one thousand nine hundred four would be dispositive on the issue of whether or not he would revert to the same attitudes because of the lack of freedoms that do but we maintain that his life in this country is very different than what his life would be if he were returned to armenia wasn't there also evidence in the record that the at the time that he was a  member the leaders of that group or that party were actually in the united states and some of their activities were being directed from the united states some somewhere here your honor but i believe that the book was there and of course i mean he had just become a nation you know within two or three years of of all of his activities you know really briefly in the thirty seconds i have i do want to address the issue of of mactire and the parole the government raised last week  submission that his parole may not have been terminated because there was no written terminations and that at the time the mr de shawn left there required to be written terminations also i'd served on you earlier this week which shows the regulation at the time that parole status terminated automatically assume a someone to part of the country and your client did depart the running out of time i do also want to say that we believe that mr john is eligible for a car because he entered before the date required there was a  finding that he of course a soviet union citizen and we believe that whatever the family filed to get here in seventy nine before the refugee act of one nine hundred eighty whatever they file should be considered an application to then petitioner testify incredibly in the fact that he states that he left late eighty one early eighty two it appears that his parole would have terminated automatically i just wanted to to state for completeness fall behind before that amendment even if we construe you know this regulation in his most favorable term it would seem that there there there might be an issue that he would need some written terminations i would submit to you though that all of this ultimately for the issues of the core needs to decide today doesn't really matter petitioner only argues his parole with respect in a car and he uses it as a way to sort of bootstrap is his parole into meeting the requirement that he has but he has filed an asylum application now the statutory language is clear with respect to the car he has to have a filed asylum application and if he can't get around that clear language there's nothing the sort of bootstrap an indefinite grant of parole which then he left into a clear filing of parole did not terminate what would be the result of analytical work what benefit would be are you respect in a car just generally generally with with as though because he had left his he would have abandoned that for all it doesn't it doesn't follow necessarily what refugee act all we have is the regulation and granted there isn't one i could actually find any case you know you're not that if it sounds like you don't even know the answer to my question which is fine truthfully interesting you know that any time we ask we always want truthful answers back to respectfully we don't we would we would proffer that when you know parole as is the way it's seen even though he got in devon england and of course most people once they got paroled from somewhere like the former u s s r didn't return that the that was only temporary permission to enter and sort of remain while mine is yanking that up though because if if the if the regulation requiring a written termination where was in effect and he never received a written terminations then it isn't temporary well parole well his and his grant of pearl was indefinite that's that's exactly right so here's a follow on question is this case a case that might be suitable to be mediated to figure out what is the most appropriate resolution no why because in a couple reasons first in the only way that petition has ever ru paul he's never claimed it allows him to remain i understand it's not one of the issues here but  mediation process is useful when there are things that aren't argued and aren't in the record that might actually have an effect on the outcome that would be permissive legally permissible and  reasonable outcome certainly if the court wishes to put it in mediation we just don't feel that his issue of parole outside of the context of what he's arguing for in a car is something that the core needs to consider it's not illegal that's our understanding that it's not an issue that's right it's right but if it is true that he had indefinite parole that was never terminated that would seem to affect the question of whether he's permitted to remain in the country is if with one of these dates that are they testify to because if you say there were fewer than one do the result is that his parole may not be terminated what the effect that has certainly that that is an issue that that is you know relatively unexplored given you know what has been breached and also what was raised before the agency  certainly that that is an issue you know that if the panel feels is appropriate we would explore that in mediation further petition our excuse me respondent has been quite a bit of research prior argument and admittedly you know given that as as you know you all are aware that this happened such a long time ago so we haven't really had the amount of cases and things like that to sort of provide us with with clear answers again i would just reiterate that of course for the issues that petitioner has raised the the disposition of of ultimately his parole side of the car is and before this up we would argue that you know in this case petitioner hasn't compelled the conclusion that he was suffer harm rising to the level of past persecution he has two incidents  persecution now certainly you know reasonable fact finders maybe could see that they could come to a reason could have decided that there was well founded but but the standard is compelled and he hasn't shown that really his claim of future persecution is wholly speculative in many respects and that that just isn't enough he did leave armenia in one thousand nine hundred four which is a long time ago he sense he's been here hasn't been politically active he he testified that he just wants to live a quiet life that he's not he doesn't really want to you know be politically active that maybe if he return may speak depending on what happens but there's nothing that shows that you know the government is currently interested in him there's nothing that shows you know anything concrete that he faces an case there was numerous detentions fired from job he was she was fined significant beatings and those incidents combined certainly the court found gave her a well founded fear and also in light of some of the country conditions but in this case there we just don't have that and there's really nothing that that in our opinion makes this case rise to that level  it is so welcome because it does involve a parole that is related to refugee status and asylum status and clearly we want to make it clear that we believe that mr sharon has already met the subjective standard for well founded fear of future persecution the judge found his testimony to be credible and we believe that that part of the test the subject of test was been met and the country conditions that have basically been consistent from the founding of armenia to today would provide evidence that the objective element should also be should also be met on the issue of the mackerras there's a case of hernandez mosquito versus ashcroft two ninety three f there to leaven sixty one which was an equal protection challenge to the to the limitation day in the applications for asylum and the court there said that congress was concerned with protecting people who had suffered the type of harm that the asylum a laws are there to protect and we believe that this is exactly why the car should be available to mr duchamp because his family fled the soviet union during clearly the record evidence doesn't really state refugee or asylum in those words that's clearly what was happening and to counsel you you've exceeded your extra time thank you i appreciate your