issues which i would argue both are trivial one is that petitioner testified that they're resting place in the morning but it was actually in the afternoon according to the declaration and the ninth circuit assault many many times here was this one with regard to the seven am seven pm and the other one is whether he was expelled from middle school or from high school and again that does not enhance his persecution in any way either way there was always the other third the question is whether it was on friday or saturday frankly friday or friday or sunday yes but the board didn't highlight that one other yes the judge the point that out and again i would submit that that falls under the rand type of cases  the petitioner said the wrong date on which he was he was beaten on the second day and the declaration said third day and the court said well victims of abuse often make such mistakes and and they said minor discrepancies in dates that cannot be viewed as a tense for the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution have no bearing credibility ability to recover site states of advancing years after they happen is an extremely poor test fox truthful witness the substan e account is so i would argue that into tallahassee of the circumstances both of them or all three of the mistakes are mine now if we were to hold that the adverse credibility finding was incorrectly entered and so that we would deem the testimony credible we then end up with a ventura problem because there's at least as i look at it the ill treatment to which he was subjected was not very severe he testified that he was slapped and that the officer then held the button now toward is no one told him something bad would happen if he continued to order me to not author an authorized church that's it that's really that's not that does not strike me as now i can't i'm not a position to hold that because of in tora but even if you went on the credibility it's going to go back to the agency to say i can pretty confident predicting what they'll say well this doesn't rise to the level of harm that he testified to before and that is his mother was for seven abortion and he observed it when he was just nine years old observatory meaning his are being taken away that's right and what have i how do you that's in the r that even at the time of the testimony took place this was a very young man and the gentleman is only one thousand years old when the testimony took place and he was only seventeen years old when he was arrested and i'd like the court to consider founded fear and he was nine years old when his mother was dragged out of his home and after that she was unable to work anymore although we don't know if that's connected and for helps the case will be remembered for that purpose  one other thing i would like the court to consider is that he was unable to continue to practice christianity after this now he doesn't say that he was expressly forbidden but he does say that he didn't go after this any longer and so you could argue that under gwo it was tantamount to prohibit him because he was afraid of any future arrest so he didn't go any more so perhaps while i i would agree that harm was regard to only christian and it is a bit light but if we consider everything together the harm to his mother which he observed at nine years old his arrest at seventeen years old the fact that he continues to practice christianity in the united states and only has to show a ten percent chance of if you were to return to china i would argue compulsive more testimony that the father couldn't work anymore and that she couldn't go to school that petitioner however i did forget to mention this if we do find if the court finds him to be credible then he was expelled from school and he was unable to continue and finish his education which is another factor source best persecution but the family didn't suffer any kind of economic deprivation is what i can well the record wasn't developed further it does he testify that his mother did not work after this incident but nobody questioned him with if this was exactly connected to the her forced abortion he just said she didn't go back to work and then end the mother purposely became pregnant right here it was accidental again i not sure that he would know that because he was only nine years old but i don't believe this part of the record was and one claim regarding past persecution for just taking them in turn the agency found that he did not credibly testify that he was experienced this raid at the house church and expulsion from school but we know is that when he testified he said he was telling his story about it consistently testified about the raw dates he was that posed on june eleventh two thousand and six on direct testimony his attorney asked him more details where were you in school then and he said for the first time i had just graduated middle school i was in between middle school and high school at this point there's questions to  conflict because his written application said he had graduated a four year earlier from you know high school and that he would have had a whole year of high school under his own no i get all that there is to say he cannot keep straight whether this happened on what date with respect to his schooling he cannot keep straight whether it was the morning of the evening he cannot keep straight what whether it's friday or sunday on the other hand typically when we get false stories the story is sufficient to support a grant of asylum the story that he has presented any competent emigration person see a lot of these cases and when you get a lot higher you get a liar who tells a story that's sufficient to qualify for asylum particularly if it's on some well you know we are told it's on some particular significant point and that material in nature but my concern is the rejection of the documents from  people who are trying to cooperate is testimony in the process and to which the agency here has to review and determine whether or not it's admissible you dealing with a foreign country excluded in the sense of of giving it any credibility because it wasn't authenticated because we have an individual who's had credibility problems and he suddenly comes in those documents from people who can't the agreement was he was going to come back with more cooperation of his practice of christianity but he also produced the additional documents concerning the expulsion from school and that raid in september two thousand and six he provided almost no testimony about that those documents and when you're looking to establish what has been incredibly a stab what has been when you're looking to consider what has been incredibly established what we know that cross examination works because of the problems it points out how can you rely on an out of court document it doesn't compel a finding that we now suddenly know that this that this raid occurred so they would have a different result and what would have constituted authentication i mean i see a lot of these cases of course and occasionally the government will send somebody to foreign country and try and locate the hospital that's alleged to have treated the person and so on but usually that does not happen and usually in the documents that we have there's some sort of half hearted attempt to show that if you have the original envelope that helps shows you know and so on but typically the documents just come in and they are what they are given the way and the documents to command are consistent with his having been expelled the only issue is when and does the government contend that because he's in unclear as to when that he wasn't expelled a school that you went to high school for one year or that he was at the beginning of the second year of high school well no but the question is not that it really doesn't matter for purposes of his asylum claim when he was expelled what does matter is whether so are you saying that his confusion as to date support substantially i j is in the b a's conclusion that he was never expelled absolutely visa he was here and then voluntarily stopped going to school people do that so we've talked about the inconsistency we talked about the able to reach that conclusion so i counsel judge cool if i could now the issue what your response to the argument that all he has to show on fear of future persecution is that there's a ten percent chance that is christianity in the u s would result in the persecution that the evidence does not compel the reasonable fact finder to find even a ten percent chance your honor i given the record evidence that there is between sixteen and nineteen million protestants in china and many parts of the country they  permitted to go to register churches unmolested and other parts there are problems for leaders of hostages and in other parts there is more aggressive prosecution in general but that these facts don't compel a reasonable fact finder to conclude that he met his burden in this case thank you so finally we come to the issue of the mother's first abortion when he was nine which the agency a forced abortion or sterilization in china the second issue the second holding enjoying was about the the sensitivity to harm experienced as a child and in this case the board cited what they're saying and point at the very beginning when he's describing his family he described his father as a geologist so there is no evidence that the that the father was unemployed there is no evidence of any substantial harm to the family at all he was able to officers when they're doing the interview they tend to check off things as they say to confirm i thought i did not think it was checking deceased i think it was a check to confirm that he answered the same way and did not wish to change his answer there if you just look at three i'm looking at the bottom three twenty four it says deceased so well if you're trying to give me some explanation of that i'm not sure i understand yet there's checkmarks all over that right now understand and as the asylum officer is doing the interview as he had to question these are the marks they make right and you're telling me that the mark that he's made ticking the box deceased deceased doesn't mean that they're just ceased i think i mother doesn't mean here doesn't have a father when there checked through i mean it's just he answered that question in the same way which is that they're currently living in fact i'm sorry on or after this asylum application was filed he produced updated letters from the mother and father so we know if they were deceased at the time of the asylum not the case because some later but sorry you're telling me that the check marks are made by the asylum officer interviewing and that i should or should ignore them yes  thank i just want to address the reef points that actually the court sort of brought out through their questions one other factor to consider was respect to press for secure ssion as that the mother was also arrested and detained two days and the court is allowed to consider harm to relatives that are similarly situated that's number one number two the court correctly pointed out the board did for some unexplicable reason gave almost no weight to the expulsion notice arguing that it's a photocopy and as i put in my brief there is no nothing in the record that says he didn't have the original nobody asked him do you have the original can we see it so the board's point is perplexing because there is nothing to assume that it's not a legitimate document and also with respect a well founded fear he did submit some letters from asparagus that say the police are looking for him so that goes to the point that there is a ten percent chance of persecution because unlike view gonzales which is the case under which normally this type of a case would with air the police did not lose interest  him and they continued looking for him and finally there is a ninth circuit case zinging be ashcroft that says we should not the applicant should not be prevented from practicing this chosen religion so even if council is right and there are forty million christians going to church in china under the government church that is not the church this petitioner wants to attend that church is controlled by the communist government they tell the pastors what to say they pick the pastors they answer to the party not to god you know the listing of these approved church approved churches quoting some christian the so called home the very same report and i highlighted this in my brief the very same report says that other individuals in gauging on sanctioned religious activity have been detained and physically abused so it does vary in some cities they do ya know yet the parents are alive and they as counsel said when they do the interview the first thing they do is go through the i five eighty nine one by one and put those little check marks now i don't have it in front of me is there a box