birth policy in china and the other is concerning a work related dispute i believe that the primary issue that we are here to contemplate is whether the board was justified in making an adverse credibility and you speak up a little bit please counsel yes i believe the primary reason or issue before the court this morning is to determine whether or not the adverse credibility determination made by held by the board was justified our position is that it was not that it was primarily based upon a number of factors concerning speculation occurred i know there's an allegation of being beaten up a little bit by some guards there but after that didn't you disclaim any long term memory practice from that experience well i believe the questions concerning whether he personally feared any harm by the family planning authorities was directed to him there was the ongoing issue of the wife being forced to  which was him installed on the same day as the course abortion and that continued until at least the time of the merits hearing which was in march of two thousand and thirteen it's unclear f the record whether that continue to go there so how how do you explain the fact that in his asylum application even though he claimed that he had various police visits including one just i think a month before you filed that he or a month after he left china the he doesn't say a word about that correct and he testified that after he left tried to the police returned to his home every few months and threatened his wife with arrest but he didn't say one word about that in his asylum application even though it would seem to be directly in point so why doesn't that support at least in part the adverse inference drawn credibility adverse inference drawn by the ministry of judge yes i do agree that that is something that should have been addressed in the  statement oftentimes they once they've committed to a certain statement and it's admitted they're reluctant to add to it and they think that whole thing i'm not quite sure what that means but you know that event that the ministry of law judge didn't have to accept that and could have said no you're just making this up understood moreover wasn't there some testimony that your client really does want to come the united states for a business opportunity that he thought was there he had no trouble getting permission to leave the country i mean  china how does that factor into the credibility determination well i believe with respect to the two applications in two thousand and five this is before the work related incident around he did t those were submitted by an agent he was going to be coming to purchase some materials for a railway company and due to his expertise in that area that he was not personally involved in the proof right certainly and what you've got here is two different allegations one of the inspector what happened with his wife with the family planning and the nd with respect to the whistle blowing and at least desire like at the record i really don't see where your client was persecuted where does it show up or at least there is a conflict in the testimony which would allow the administrative law judge to find that he was not credible we believe the the brunt of the persecution was with regard to the family planning claim he was when he arrived at the family planning forced to wear another i got to the time of the trial at least and they were deprived of that opportunity to have an additional child a week we have course of heard many many many many of these cases change their policy now but the reality is here the issue is your client and whether he was persecuted and as you yourself point out with this happened a long long time ago and with respect to the the business opportunity in the whistleblowing and saw it just hard to see where he personally suffered anything it seems like he kind of manufacturing at least that's what the if the other party the one that's not mean subjected to an abortion or to sterilization is able to demonstrate that he otherwise resisted he provided other resistance that he is then entitled to the presumption that there is past persecution because the form of the harm the abortion is something that's permanent and ongoing let's say let's say you're right i don't agree with you just so you're right then  there's that there is a presumption going forward be still has to show that current life you had a brute of persecution and i don't think there's been any showing has there that he is currently persecuted or would be persecuted if he were to go if you're correct that he had suffered in quote past persecution i think the fact that they have permanently deprived of having any additional children because of their the passage of time their age that that is a permanent ongoing harm that cannot be it's irreparable ok you want to say even if your time council is up to you but it's yes thank you we're here for the government morning but please the court from that has been for the government in the present case the review petition should be denied because stansell evidence supports the agency's adverse credibility determination as you've already heard there were two claims in this case what a family planning why the petitioner was incredible st and foremost he stated that he was not aware that his wife was pregnant until he showed up at the family planning office that day but when it was pointed out to him that they were told she was three months pregnant on that day w he be aware that she had missed she had not been mentioning for several months he admitted well yeah she's mean yes we were aware but we thought maybe because she was wearing an i u d she might not be pregnant and th inconsistency your honour's again they also for the judge also found it implausible that even though the family planning officials thought it was of the utmost urgency that the whites have an abortion immediately they would allow him thirty minutes to arrive from work if they were going to do it anyway and their wishes were irrelevant next there was the demeanor finding where the immigration judge said that it just seemed that he was making it up when he was talking about being punched and kicked a that immigration judges and have to have a running commentary during the hearing but as long as he identifies reasons for a demeanor finding in his decision it's supported by substantial evidence and turning to the two thousand and eleven  whistle blowing claim he claimed that basically he was blacklisted and fired and he can find another job because the government was angry with him for reporting on defective products but then he turns around and prefer provides a certificate from the government and when he was asked well why did you get that he stated that his wife asked for it so that he could find further employment and that's simply implausible your honor that they would fire him as a challenge but then give him a get of of employment to help him find a future job and as you've already heard humid that he was aware at the time that he filed his june two thousand and twelve asylum application that his wife was being harassed and threatened by the police and he gave no reason why he didn't include that with the application and that's a material admission and finally it simply implausible that if he was under surveillance by the chinese police for several months and had to report to them periodically he could not leave his with respect to the workplace dispute you're saying that there really is no nothing there to show that he was persecuted that he was actually persecuted or that he would fa persecution when he was very poor and didn't reach the actual issue of persecution they rely solely on credibility but even yet nothing i mean if you cut through it there is no there there it's not there and then with respect to the  the the merits hearing and it would not be unusual i mean it's just human nature to forget details but he was clear though on what happened to his wife he was not so clear as to how many many times he was beaten and many times or hell it happened that's not an every day event that one would likely forget as well i don't think you forgot about the incident i believe he was that he was being asked how many times were you beaten he gave we went through this a little bit before but he gave somewhat inconsistent responses you're saying oh well no one's memory is perfect and it was a long time ago but would it not  be fully within the power of the administrators law judge to conclude no i based on all i've heard in his demeanor and everything else i think he's just making it up both those are plausible but that that overall considering the testimony and also the attempts to obtain credit of evidence and form in the form of a an abortion certificate that was given attempted to be handed to the wife at the hospital however it was intervened intercepted by the family planning authorities and she did make attempts after that to obtain additional evidence and because of the lapse of time she was unavailable