credible the i g also found with a much less or with a much more limited discussion that he had failed to meet its burden of proof of course this case was filed an appeal was filed with the board and the board dismissed the appeal with a decision and that decision the board only agreed with the immigration judge its conclusion that the petitioner has failed to meet its burden of proof to show past persecution or a well founded fear of persecution in china for the likelihood of torture here we have a petitioner that worked at a public company in china public company meaning government run during lunch one day this petitioner voiced disapproval for the company's recent firing of some palm down practitioners this record before records states and i quote since mid one nine hundred ninety nine the government has waged a severe political propaganda and police campaign against the falling on spiritual movement the campaign intensified significantly throughout the year moreover with beatings detention under extremely harsh conditions and torture now the consequence of mr ruse vocal disapproval resulted in a ten day detention that included gives your honor i think you're proceeding with your argument on the assumption that the board and not just the decision of the hi jane and therefore we review the decision  of your argument the theory of my argument is more is that we have a credible record before us because you're bored now you're missing the point let me let me tell you what the problem seems to be  that this decision by the v a the i a e a says the thing agree with the conclusion of the idea but we can't tell from whether they have adopted the high jerry's decision as their own if they have him we would review the hi jay decision and your argument makes a lot of sense or you're for c but if the vi a makes its own decision then we review the v r a decision however in this case we can't and then your argument makes a lot of sense that that is what do we do with this weird decision by the board well i would urge your honor that since the board failed to put any facts in there relative to what their conclusions based upon that the only thing in the record that we have left nevertheless in this in the sense it matters the government is basically claiming two reasons why the petitioners in our double for the final first think they contend that it non membership in the fall and on and the absence of police involvement in the detention and beating that they undermine its claims these are basically the two points of the respondent is raising on appeal i'd like to address each of those independently first look to shared participation in falun gong is unnecessary in order to succeed under the imputed political opinion doctrine before the court the focus of that doctrine the political opinion doctrine turns away from the views of the victim and look to the views of the persecuted specifically the court looks at the political views of the persecut record clearly states that the persecutor was a quote special security worker quote unquote assigned by the government that located on page fifty seven of the records in fact because of conditions in the records submitted by the government indicate that the government work units and neighborhood committees do exist and that these government agencies were originally charged with monnerie monitoring activities and attitudes nevertheless petitioners often aware of a perms the conclusion of an immigration notice decision if there's no actual reasoning then if the immigration judge's decision provides reasoning that could be that could be considered thrown enough and careful enough then the court may take a look at immigration judge's decision in combination with the board's decision and i can tell you my i don't know if you can get word to the i am this but lately they've been issuing you're probably well  accept that we can ok thank you but given what we do have in this case then we've got to take a look at the records and because the court's review is based on whether or not there is sufficient evidence  public a public company and government action a village the government entity your honor a village can be but where there's some influence by the village it doesn't necessarily mean that the village directs all the decisions by the company in fact if one were to jump to that conclusion then that would mean that a company director who had any personal vendetta against mr lew could possibly just fire him and the court in that there are no gaps in this testimony we have the four letters here from respondents are from the petitioners family members coworkers neighbors and another individual let me read a little bit from the wise letter you actually didn't absolutely the letters are contained respectively the letter from the white was at one thirty eight the letter from his neighbors in one forty four the letter from an ex coworker is that's one hundred  forty eight and the letter from another co worker's at page one hundred fifty three those are the translated taking these letters together they shall taking these letters together it shows that he was arrested because the government that was in the government company was put there by the government to enforce security there secondly the letter from his wife specifically stated that even after the petitioner departed trying that the neighborhood committee and the police came looking for him at his house and i think threatened that it would be serious if he refused to come back i don't believe there are any gaps in this record your honour's i believe in the testimony is pretty clear there at the government's conceding that he's credible and now it's almost as if they're sidestepping saying when we have a credible record it shows that he was being a children it was the company that shows that the police monitored him afterwards it showed that the neighborhood committee monitored the math and words but there's not enough here to show that this mean