honors this is an asylum case and in this case the petition was found to be credible therefore the issues before this court are to one is whether or not the petitioner suffered any past persecution and to whether or not this persecution was on account of political opinion and we believe that in this case the answers to both are yes in this case there was a recent case song the sessions which is very similar to this case in which both petitioners were protesting against the government action in this case of a forced relocation or forced demolition and both of them were arrested because of their protest and so we believe that this act of protesting against the government action is a political opinion let's let's assume let's assume that after song that i'm willing to concede that at least willing to think that that needs to go back to the b i a there's and ultimately the alternate in the in the b i e s decision is that your client didn't suffer it what your client suffered didn't amount to past persecution so again we did incredible but all in all doesn't about the past persecute yes your honor and i know the board cited a good case for that but we believe that this case is distinguishable from gu first apparently related to his activities but he traveled on his own passport a lot was allowed out of the country so he would travel seem to travel freely and in china there's some question as to whether he was really whether were watching carefully to make sure they fulfill the matter the probation the terms of his probation so where's that where's the evidence of persecution other than this i mean that's what you got that one time disturbing the yes well you know we believe that humility believed that there was past persecution even if this particular single incident was not persecution the petition also credibly testified about to force the portions upon his wife now again the forced abortions again unto itself may not be persecution but we believe that cumulatively if you take into account this single incident plus the two you don't have any evidence to you that the officials who were enforcing the or the or the one child policy and the official persecution heat presumably could try and demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution which would take into account what happened to him with regard to the into main question even if that wasn't persecution that's and persecute him in the past and they were what they would you would have in the future would be persecution but since the b i a n e i j were were premised on the fact that that wasn't a kind of nice simple ground at all they never really got to that increase that's correct and that and that's why in this case you know we're arguing that there was past persecution because therefore there would be a presumption of a welfare even if my point is only that even if if there weren't there would still be something to integrate if we if they came to a different conclusion as to the next question yes or i agree with that i do believe that there was a well founded fear in this case i do believe that you know subjectively that he does have a well return and that objectively he does as well considering again that the government continued to show an interest in him even after they released him what would interested in him after he left the country in december  i don't believe that they i don't know if they showed an interest in him after he left the country but while again after he was released from detention they continue so an interest in him by rick requiring him to report and so that could just that could just be the terms of disturbing the peace i mean so let's let's characterize this just a little differently and say look they they they overreacted but this was just a disturbing the peace they had some terms of probation that's not clear that they were that they were enforced he leads he leads the country you know why eleven fear and so what you're what the point you're bringing up is eleven years later i understand what the point is but the point is that in terms of one in ten chance we believe that that is a possibility considering what had happened to him previously considering that they did show an interest in him and as you said even if this was some sort of probation i guess you could say that he violate that probation by by leaving the country by not continue to report as he was required to do so i believe that does meet the standard of whole right but either way it's only required of one in ten chance for a well founded fear and will we believe that that would be a one in ten chance even if we're only talking about well founded fear and we're not talking about past persecution but as i said in this instance we do believe that there is past persecution as i said i know the board stated in its decision that they did consider everything in the aggregate but they kind of took them separately they said in this case the single incident with the the mayor's office that was not passed persecution your that's why i asked whether there were any with the commonality of officials and forcing these two different these two different problems right the  they're both government officials either way sure but but if you evaluate the possibility of future persecution you have to think about two different groups one that might come after him because he and his wife were in violation of the one child policy and that was in force apparently in a different province and they never had any contact with him he wasn't around that's true you know we're going to have to there are a lot of steps there to get to that they're going to do something to him on the basis of the one child policy i mean what's done is done not even clear that she's persecution happened to him and both of those instances where government officials persecuting him are there any does does he have any if you were sent back to china does he have any particular claim against that against the government based on  instance now eleven years old well you know although i believe that he probably i suppose it's possible that he could bring a claim considering the government of china being a communist country i don't believe that it is going to get his previous actions and the fact that as your honor said if he was on some sort of probation where he was required to report and he did not do so he left the country instead of continuing to do so that this would be something that he would have a fear of because the government essentially he did not based upon his there was no nexus that is open to doubt anderson now then they say in the alternative there was no past persecution right they don't address and it may be because it wasn't like he gave whether that he could have may please the court nicholas harling for the respondent i first like to address the impact of the recent song decision unlike in this case in song the presence of persecution was not in dispute and for that reason if this court affirms the board's persecution determination it need not reach the issues of actual words cupid's political opinions that were that were subject to song second well issue the final paragraph on page two it's now starting to talk about the basis for why he would have a fear overturn his the the restriction that he not leave the city when he was actually able to and the board cites to page thirteen immigration judge's decision it's on page thirteen that the that the immigration judge is talking about why there's no well founded fear for the same reason the ability to his ability to leave the city despite being told not to do so so and i believe just the way the factually distinguishable from song and song the court found imputed political opinion for two reasons it cited the escalation of the petitioners protest which we don't have in zangs case and also cited the disproportionate punishment the theory that if you're protesting taking your property period the end that's not a next we're going to argue that the court song didn't just rest on the fact that he was accused of being anti government the court also cited the escalation of the protests as well as a disproportionate punishment so the government you know absolutely in this case this government strongs point is whether he experience past persecution absolutely however the court the government is not willing to necessarily concede that song that issue hasn't been decided by the board that the court could remain on the court can remain on that issue as to whether song controls but that's only necessary if this court disagrees with the agency's finding that the one where there was not the court said that although not identical clearly this is more similar to goo than guo and therefore the government argues that substantial evidence supports that past persecution determination well i think it falls much closer to good and here is why it is almost exactly similar to good except in the petitioner was they only was detained for three days in this case it is seven days no question that is a difference however in yes it's a stand her view question and maybe you win at that point that there is something  him once your honor these are these are terminations that the agency is forced to make they do the best they can with that i mean there's also case law that says you know persecution does not encompass all kind of acts that we find on favorable or  foreign that is an extreme it depends i mean in this case yeah he was he was beaten and that was unfortunate however he didn't need medical attention we have other case law liking where he was had a an electrical baton used on him he was forced to seek medical attention that's why the board used chose to use that analysis and the question is not whether this court was it we're deciding the issue in the first instance were found otherwise it's compelling evidence against the boards use of reaching the boards determination in this case there's not anything else thank you very much goo was able to return to his government job in this case the petitioner's breast restaurant was demolished and he was also fined five thousand r and b so he had no means of of supporting himself and read you have some case of saying that that can be taken occasions to ask about his the case i talked about every month since then and correct but no evidence of any further bungles no evidence after those initial few visits but it makes sense that the police would not continue to visit