targeted for harm by people who seek him or her out specifically as a court affirmed and how we may be holder the singled out path is not reserved solely for those applicants whose would be persecutor seek them out personally by me rather kodak's the ins recognize that one's chances of being singled out from the general population and subjected to persecution is often strongly correlated with the frequency with which others who share the same disfavor characteristics are mistreated and persecuted which brings us to the second or the beyond a character in ruling that a member of the disfavored group has to be singled out from all other people in his disfavor group rather than from the general population and we find evidence of that in the third sentence of the fourth paragraph of that decision on administrative record for person of chinese ethnicity in indonesia and instead what they did in your honour's is they came up with this bright line rule of what is not considered to be honor i have to be apologising and nowhere in the be a decision for which for which one of you asking for it singled out again here in his own group yes that is on the one two three the fourth paragraph and if you take a look at the third sentence where it starts with he meaning charlie has not articulated any reason why he is any more likely to in indonesia leave that there because a for identification purposes work permits driver's license so forth they don't accept one name for the f and you kind of become lazy pick another  being called a lot of names by these various people who accosted him and physically harmed it's all untranslated in the wreck every time we come to a place where i mean where it would show that they were doing this on and it's bizarre because they rule that when violence happens in public and the person is not chosen by noam there is no persecution on account of a protected ground and of course there is no basis additionally all five of the incidents of risk one man was directly involved in occurred in public places and then if you step two paragraphs the respondent appears to have been randomly each of the incidents which occurred in public places so what is it persecution can only occur in private because you presume mansion at the time of hitler's germany a jew coming forward and saying that i was selected in public and the board saying well now that's an public we don't accept that sort of have to be in a private setting and last error is the b i heard him finding no pants persecution where there was credible evidence that mr charlie had been attacked numerous times on account of his ethnicity and if you look at the only has shown individual lives risk but the board now is requiring him to be singled out by name for it not to be occurring in a public place and for him to shell specific harm because they are not accepting the harm that is circumstantial or if we look at the cases in this circuit and seen how the court has recognized that even where the attacks occurred during the course of some other criminal act ethnic slurs helped to show the attackers motive was on account of the protected group but that's because the board refused to give any weight to the credible credible evidence of the attackers motive and because the board improperly required the task persecution can only take place in private places the board's conclusion that charlie's amounts of her past persecution lack substantial evidence and should be reversed i see that my time i counsel but if i may i'd like to start out by focusing on st germain findings that the board an immigration judge made which i think will straightforwardly dispose of this case first of all the board found and i immigrations also found that the harm that mr charlie talked about was was reprehensible but did not rise to the level of persecution and mr charlie does not that this beaut that finding second of all  immigration judge in the board found that mr charlie is a member of a disfavor group albeit not severely disabled group and the government doesn't dispute that finding so there are already two findings which are undisputed the third finding is whether mr charlie showed an individualized risk which he was required to do under this court's the same a group analysis and that finding gave here suppose in germany or maybe in some other centuries a jew was in a traffic accident and they pulled him out of the car and beat him and said you dirty jew  would not constitute an act of persecution and the ground of religion well what why what opposing counsel are saying about public place in in this decision is well i'd like answered the question about the bell if somebody pulled out of a car in a traffic accident and said beat and then said you dirty jew persecution on the grounds of religion well we don't have that case i know we don't know the case he just why don't you tell me you don't want to answer the question if you don't already answered one or the other here you honor i do not decide what is persecution ok never mind i don't you don't what do you do for a living what do i do yet you telling me what you don't do what is it you are here to do you are not here to answer answer questions your honor i'm here to talk about the case now ok we'll just talk about the case and we won't go up bother about the questions we may have do you have another question no there's no point in asking i'm just trying to be nice but thank you so can you answer the question and answer gerard question oh well i i was i i was about to i'm going to take this walk actually as the daughter of of refugees from austria who were jewish and why father who was a wonderful man was a poor driver and he got called a lot of names in the united states is printed in writing beaten at several times and every time he was beaten up the people beat him were calling him chinese racial slurs so we know they had a motive against him and of his ethnicity so i think our cas size such that we when there is physical harm we we consider that to be right to level prosecutions well and if you look at the case of halim where there were similar kinds of problems including that hoeing was was falsely accused of a crime and detained and beaten in prison the squire did not see  individualized serous or harmed rose to the level of past persecution the same kind of thing you can find in long and insane the kind of individualized risk which does actually link to the as nic group and not to the general population is the kind of thing that was inside i'll watch you know the the the board was simply responding to west and then his father went to the local chief leader which is a government position who towed charlie's father to pay the projects then in ninety seven while he was writing public transportation native indonesians stole his money and beat him barbarically and he was told you dirty  and a native in an asian rear ended him an argument broke out between the driver and charlie the driver and him but and no natives the it up charlie and he was hospitalized and required eight stitches on his it and they yelled at him and said you damned china you know china damn china you die and you went to the police and they wouldn't help him and while he's no five was driving a native indonesian police officer collided with charlie and charlie blame the ac they offered the man that the charlie pay for the damages which he did and then the officer said hey china don't you know that i'm police don't you dare do anything with crimes against ethnic chinese minorities not it's not a lot of stuff it's telling me that they're all nice to aman you know bother um they're very  violence in the in the world that it's ethnically and religiously based but and that millions of people suffer from the silence but that's a different question from whether they're entitled to asylum under under the laws of the united states so in sum i'd like to just a call the court's attention to the fact that mr charlie failed to show he showed membership energy saver group he suffered random group reprehensible harm but it did not rise to a level of past that he had an individualized risk because there are the petitioners showed that in addition to being a member of a slave or group there were also a pastor they were members of a subgroup they saw in the lens excuse me which was in the individual eyes risk in the motion to reopen setting what the government is doing and they're doing in a lot of these cases which we need guidance from the on is that we need to go back and show how you did in khost sense where you said look there are groups and then there are subgroups and when you start getting to some of these groups that individual lives risk is  he last and last that needs to be shown here what the government is doing is they're pitting people against one another in the disfavored group they're saying that look in all of these cases maybe we had a pastor among the christians or something to that meter let me give you another hypothetical ok thirty eight years ago when we came to the united states as jews fling iran the islamic republic of iran and my parents applied for asylum we didn't have to show that we had it worse off than a nother region that's impossible to prove how are you going to members of the same to save a group against