easily discriminatory inconsistent with humanitarian principles and violative of international law mr thing my client fundamentally disagreed with that all seek to woman showed up hungry thirs what was the reason because they escaped north korea into china and because of this chinese policy there rounded up forcibly repatriated back and as a statement a very clear is not some you know philosophical legal easy issue although those are obviously important in our own right this is a real policy that affects real people because it's real pain and i think we've heard that from some of the other cases just tom and i want to answer your harboring illegal immigrants neutral whether it's mexicans a lot of mullens dutch people anyone the chinese policy only applies to north korean immigrants in fact people from laos vietnam bordering countries and who were also come in and this policy does not apply to them and that's one fundamental distinction ours is neutral of counsel you have to refresh my memory i don't ever remember having in the because it's so heavily mined sharpest effect absolutely vital i mean the fact that people from laos are you know bangladesh and cambodia which are very close and obviously very impoverished as well they must flee to somewhere the fact that those people don't about it and your argument is that it's been pure political that's right and the other thing about the distinction between our policy our law about mass about illegal immigrants from any country and there just is we provide no matter what what your explanation might be if you're a north korean in our country you are an economic migrant and there is no chance you're a refugee which obviously undermines the very purpose of the refugee convention and there's a case i did want to quote  any of the following my science account of his actions that led to his persecution my client's account of the chinese policy issue regarding north koreans my client's account regarding his fundamental disagreement with our policy or my client's talent of his torture suffered at the hands of a chinese government for violating our policy other really that those are the issues that underlie his claim a fear of persecution and rather stunning week then immigration judge did not even content so the issue there was you know he came here and his claim obviously is he escaped persecution he did leave his wife and his child in china and you know the immigration judge jumped on that and said wait if you're actually fearing persecution why would persecution throughout many times maybe seven or eight times takes thirty three or all the coach ations through the transcript and then at the end of the hearing the immigration judge seemingly unwilling to accept that that's why he left started grilling him and it turns out i do that and i don't think that it's presented in this case the question of whether it's a matter of law he's entitled to asylum this petition has to get over the credibility fine he was found not think if he if this court overturns the credibility finding that he would be appropriate for this court to remand to the board of immigration you to see if the petitioner is entitle  country and even that the person us is just in isn't the same ethnic background as the alien he or she is trying to help and then goes on to say that could not be political opinion it's a crime challenged this policy and that's just perfectly appropriate for senator brownback and for president bush to challenge the policy and for the secretary of state to challenge the policy or to try to t if you're based on a credibility decision if the court finds seemed to be credible this this case should be sent back to the board for the board so we can to address this this so called policy of the law in the first  the record to understand that blatant lie we need to look at the