he alter case in the it wasn't seriously injured the confrontation didn't stop him from working in shanghai and then and what he was told was that the fine was for injuring the village had not because of his resistance to family planning so what is there that would compel the inclusion that the determination and the suffer harm constituting persecution really you're leaving the question i thought the question was a very good one we should get back to it and that is not things that happened to his wife what happened to what happened to  the record does not compel the reversal of the adverse credibility finding for the alternative merits finding in the last the court three both findings the adverse credibility finding is based on two having had delivered two different versions of the events in one version which is on page four hundred and seventeen me just as written statement in that version the nd forced abortion occurred on january th two thousand and four and he assaulted an officer on the st of two days in which he four and instead of an assault taking place on the st day he claims it took place on the nd day now and you say that he claims to take place on the nd day what exact language are you referring to specifically  came out to help they saw that we had people and they left the nd morning they came back and said i drive me to the policy and that i had assaulted a government official they are arresting me and they took me away so you know  i had assaulted a government official your view is that that is basically unambiguous as to what day that's referring to yes because that is the way that it's written here is that it's that he's there saying that they came back with police officers because almost because he had previously assaulted the official and that was the reason that i think that that's not that sure seems to me that the government is parsing that language a lot in a circumstance where i think it could reasonably be read another way and it's obviously not the petitioners st language where was translated for him so i'd be interested in your other views as to the credibility accordingly i think sure and i think what's really important is to look at what happened when he was questioned about these things because rather than really saying for example what you're pointing out is that while you're grad you misread my written statement you made all kinds of confusing statements at that point you know and this is if you look at ph around seventeen thousand one hundred and seventy one point seven two one seven three this is where the immigration judge goes and tries to get a clear answer from him was it the st day was it the nd day we use just clarify once and for all and you tell us so here's what happened he has to ask a very long series of questions to get any straight answer and at  he had them on both days so his answer was like see none of the above and so i i don't find that his explanation was at all persuasive and he certainly didn't offer the explanation that your hono because he was very belligerent and kept him and that's on page one hundred and seventy three so his own testimony supports what the government is claiming that he was inconsistent between st st and nd day and then rather than offer any reasonable testified to and it's a very important piece of information because this in a way that even the heart of the claim standard is not applicable in a post realized yet this is actually at the heart of the claim because it explains whether  didn't like why wouldn't he have left after the st day if he had hit the official in the mouth of the st day the immigration judge found well how is that reasonable that you thought that you would negotiate with the village planning officials on the nd day they would come back and  would make a deal to be able to keep the baby after you punch someone in the face and broke their tooth and it was just totally implausible and that's what the immigration judge found with respect to the adverse credibility finding on his own written statement and and his explanation was completely on perseus but even in the alternative as your honor has pointed out there was an alternative merits finding and that and that is so therefore even if you disagree with the adverse credibility finding under the merits finding he's still failed to show that the record palls a finding of persecution on account of the protected grounds now in this court to be eligible on account of other resistance which is his theory of eligibility an applicant must demonstrate persecution beyond records of the court about the record every time he was required to pay a fine in the past and you're absolutely right that six hundred are in the fine was on account of marrying too young and and that was never made part of the plane before the immigration judge in terms of how that fin available and finds that this fine is one hundred thousand which is just an astronomical amount compared to the a prior to find so as opposed to what it would take him to go to quad that's true but it was twenty thousand  there's but i mean it's logical to assume that if he was going to want to earn money people might have an expectation they would get it back ok but even so he never made the claim she did maybe his the fine was not even on account of his other resistance but on account of him punching in official and breaking of officials too and so the government would say that that should not factor in at all and so your your time has expired want to finish up most of my colleagues