claim for persecution past persecution based on his religious belief in china and the immigration court the judge deemed that he was credible  testimony in his documentation to nothing was credible however the judge denied his claim for asylum because the judge believed that he did not meet his persecution did not meet the standard stated in this district  based in the ninth circuit there's two cases there currently are being used in immigration courts to decide persecution in china we guarding christian claims they have  toward towards those decisions the petition in this case was detained for fifteen days he was forced to run to get food to eat while he was detained the guards made him run the guards means that if you don't run you don't get food and that during that time the guard also made other inmates beat him and the guard i believe kick them or are him once or twice in life but also include when he was detained by the police interrogated at the police station he was also slapped kicked and beaten by the police too if you look at the circumstances you know in this case versus the two go case  prosecution i guess what what effect do you think it has that he was once he was released he was allowed to continue to practice they don't return to that house church and he he was not persecuted while he was still there well that's a good question he returned to house search his house church only twice the next six months prior to that he went to his house was fifteen to seventeen times so his ability to practice freely dismissed after he was released but he did testify that the house church continued to hold meetings even his absence after he was released caressed that's true but his own ability to practice whether or not the house church had means it didn't have means he wasn't felt safe enough to be able to go before he was going he was a member he's passing out flyers due to this incidence and the warning they actually gave them a warning before he was released it was to agree with you as to past prosecution that's what your request to us all are my request is that the petitioner right now is the contains for almost a year and a half and released in by ice we want the judge of this court to remand it case back to be i eighty and have b i also america's back to immigration court if you look at the b i decision in this case it's basically doesn't rubber stamp the immigration judges decision they didn't do any additional analysis they didn't look at any of the arguments that the previous council argued in the brief they just said of based on the judge we agree with the judge there's no there's no fact finding there's no analysis is no review there's nothing they just agreed and they just take that and then they agree with the judge we believe that the right remedy in this case is  present any evidence of psychological harm now bear in mind the petitioner was detained in january two thousand and seventeen he was in detention throughout the whole proceedings this hearing happened in about april of two thousand something with the decision made in may of two thousand nine hundred so the ability to have the petitioner to seek psychological evaluation in detention in three and a half months that was very difficult for anybody to do and you know we believe that this is a argument that the certainly a lot of information in the initial record as you said the immigration judge found him to be credible and listed a number of talked about the beatings in the jail and the treatment so if if that's the what they're stating that if you want more evidence give us not a chance to have a psychological evaluation you can't hold a petition for not being present psychological evidence when he didn't have the opportunity to tell that's the primary reason you want to go threatened by the chinese police that he would be arrested if he did go back to the along with see in custody mr cuomo is in custody i think for two days and how long was petitioner here in custody fifteen days but the materials outside of the house church he was held for fifteen days and not to minimize the post or the harm that he suffered in this case but they were in terms of persecution and the idea of it it was relatively minor we're talking about open hand slap was presented of persecution and the issues doesn't that raise the specter that they want to keep track of him and what he's doing it's a reasonable inference but if you look at his statement again doesn't say why  the thirty's i think government authorities required him to sign a statement and report back but it's not necessarily true based on country condition reports that every equally persecuting i mean do you say that we have to find only in cases where they had there was a reporting requirement can establish past persecution and we definitely haven't limited it to that and right i but i think that's where this case differs from well and so if you take into account the case from together for in that case the petitioner had a check and i think four or five times on a weekly basis but eventually the chinese police lost interest me voluntarily went back to the church and he had no problems whatsoever with the chinese police and that fact when he said he didn't go as frequently to the house church he was asked why and he said to his parents he had religious differences with his parents and so his more strict and they had loads differences so it's causing problems council if we were to disagree with the government on whether the harm suffered groups to the level of past persecution what is the government's view of what the remedy should be the presumption so we would have to go back and and the board would do would would issue an order like to that effect and so that also takes me to the the the agency also made an object lee determination regarding the fear of future persecution and i think that's even stronger again if the court disagrees and holds a quo is obviously controlling which we disagree with then we have to go back but if the court does not and agrees with them or at least a first of the agency's pas persecution determination there's also this future persecution determination that's even stronger so again there's evidence in the record that that summer house churches were even bothered less so in china as long as those house churches are main small and kept it kept it to kept to a minimum basically and so you add to that the fact that leader of mr lynch house church he went back to practicing on a weekly basis he continues to hold  religious gatherings weekly at his house he was also one of the people who was arrested and also detained for fifteen days with mr lamb and so he has not stopped proceeding with his was activities also when he was a government job he was a government employee in this case it's a big difference this gentleman was detained arrested for fifteen days made to run for his meals and was suffered a couple beatings in that