withholding on the cap but we provide we've seen that she does qualify for relief and there is a nexus because she was exercising her political opinion while she was in gauging and aiding the north korean refugees i'm a big concern about this is seems to be a smuggling route between and into china and therefore since it's a law of general application she's basically being prosecuted persecuted is there read that i am concerned because this is the no doubt about what happens to people from prosecuted under the criminal laws of france at the time but i would hope the we had a society would step back and say wait a minute nature of what you're doing is totally consistent with political opinion persecution and my missing something is that the past or  case before the b a a and before us that's my posture before you and before the b aiyana we stated that she basically she did not burble the state that she has a political opinion what she did was demonstrated that  is the prosecute you they say they prosecute but in a sense they really persecuting you had they not had they done that and we're not talking about where responded had committed actual crime that's a currency violation which the guy pointed out all of us know that by the immigration judge that is correct you're on a basically the just immigration judge did not do not really born those two issues he just didn't know how to packaged the queen and he even states that on the record b i a b i a only refers to him and if it utterly fails to look at all of the things that happened that would seem to be you don't do that unless you're intending to inflict pain and the immigration judge erred in determining it's more likely than not respond it would be tortured we agree which as you said appears to be a novo review of what we have said needs to be defined in the air you are correct you are used to credibility and why can't you answer judgement bell's question she said is it compelling that we find must we find that it's compelling to reverse the determination and that my one question the second question is why can't we just order that is  on the evidence that we have already seen that they were tortured or that she would be subject to torture and she shouldn't be entitled to the protection of cat what's wrong with that well for one your honor i know i'm going over for a minute should look at again we would do that i think what he's saying is there is there is no doubt in the record but that what was done here is amounted to torture and there is that likelihood and we would order it on our own and just outright reverse rather than vacate and remap so the fact that you can't trust them ok on the torture situation doesn't matter so much of course getting out of the pen the i guess you want the now is there if if we did find the existence of cat would they then be able to send her somewhere else and i j didn't conduct any eve of you they didn't they didn't address political opinion they just had a one liner prosecution versus prosecution you threw in currency violation they didn't not analyze what she did you were going to report talk talk about the country report on the fact that the first page makes it clear that here it was it would be political correct if i may just one minute i read the bible five first page states it's two paragraph from the bottom the government failed to protect refugees accurately adequately and the forced reparations of north koreans continued to be a grief problem we know that for the questions i reserve my time thank you thank about horrible torture us acts and there is no showing that those are considered at all and you show where in the b i is analysis there's a reference to anything other than him  him well said the he said the overall record during says and experience writing the overall record evidence suggests that their fears of likely prospective torture were intentional infliction has references to the fact that the sort of the record ameri profits why at the least should we not send it back because they use that they just disagreed with the immigration judge as compared to say there was a clearly erroneous determination decision says accordingly we find that the responded has failed to establish that severe instances of mistreatment now and in the record are not so pervasive as to establish th hung by their funds they were were boarded they did everything in that prison that we had characterized as torture and she was subjected to th would be subjected to the same thing so where do we stand about the b i e having considered the evidence the board said it considered the record your honor and we also looked at the evidence of mr kim who said the prisoners were mistreated because they failed to adhere to prison rules he was submitted by the petitioner as an expert on prison conditions and regardless of why prisoners were of course rated all prisoners are treated my tears already run out of my eyes that feeling was hard to describe when my tip toe was hired mike to talk was just able to reach the ground i wanted to have also on the ground but my tortured and they talk about the activities that were taken while they were in prison to which she may be subject are you telling me that that is not a torturous activity that with might be this is upon her these two individuals were subjected to that's the issue and if that issue is to be answered yes then i see no basis at all for the position that you because the only thing that they i j mentioned was kim even though the i j said the overall record shows torture and found in fact that there was torture but then the b i a says we're just going to look at him and the country report and we disagree it looks like to be on a totally ignored every other aspect of the record can you show me somewhere where we can tell that they looked at beyond him and the country reports that were in jail for the same reason ok then why does it be i just credit his testimony and not discuss the testimony of others who are more than just one person who have had much more extreme if at least the b i had has say i find his compelling and the others i discount them or somehow if they're going to reverse the i j s finding that the overall record shows torture witnesses in prison for years and the state department country report right recognizing that there was a primarily primarily reliance on ghosts and use of evidence that's why the board goes into greater detail on those but  overall record evidence more than suggests he didn't go into chapter and verse but consider the overall record evidence and the b i a well it's ok to look at what he talked about has to look at the overall evidence and so mention of anything concerned as i indicated before rather forcefully i think that she should be granted her cat that titian without  agreement here as a representative of the united states would you agree that if someone could show that there's a one outstanding for arrest in china that she came to there and states that two other named in the same warrant were subjected to the kind of treatment the judge got just outline for us and would you then agree that if she was sent back to china it's more likely than not being named in the same warrant as those two people she'd be treated the same as those toward would you then agree that one if she were to go back to china there's nothing on the record to suggest that she would be given differentiated or convention fortunately to those things and if not why what do you disagree with who aided north koreans the same for wherever reason and we don't know where this the people in her group they had a particular problem and we know for sure given the absence of contravening country  that the i j a had to finding with respect to that likelihood had to be clearly erroneous me when you factor that in the b i a said it's not so pervasive it's not so bad it's this it's up to the likelihood will she or will she not be tortured will she or will she not and  i i said no i don't think it's not a likelihood and clearly it's clearly erroneous that this is life and didn't want whether it's the whether it's a satisfice torture or behind didn't really address because they would have to have looked at what him said and what jean said and what you know prison versus they would have had to look at whether this constitutes torture they that's exactly right and one other point that he stated in his testimony and it's also in our brief that people help north korean refugees the charges criminals this but their treatment were like murderers and tra not of anybody breaking a minor law but that's all i want to add i was sure that does come because you think they're treated like common criminals i even they were prosecuted were no no no they were treated haters like murderers and traitors not