facts in the record mr jennings eligible for asylum and withholding of removal under this court's holding in ma versus ashcroft in ma the court held that a husband is automatically eligible for asylum in withholding when his wife is forced to have an abortion and the manner that is recognized by the chinese government and the only thing they did was have a drink of wine together in your opinion that makes the marriage isn't that so respectfully i don't believe that's what the record what does the record show the record shows that the couple moved in together yes and when at the time they moved in together in this changing soon it was only nineteen years old and so therefore they were unable to register their marriage under china's course of family planning policies there was absolutely no way they could have married at that time they did cohabitate for a year and a half they lived together as husband and wife and they held themselves out as husband and wife during that entire entire time when  twenty and it was possible from then to marry they went to the birth control committee and miss soon so home village of zoo leave and they they asked for the for the control birth committee director to approve the marriage to let them get married and the birth control director refused and said no you can't get married mr needs to be twenty three and again that's also part of the course of family planning policies the chinese government wants to delay marriage as long as possible in order to reduce the number of children so missing wasn't permitted to marry and mr jim believed that she should if they should have been able to marry at that at that point instead of just father to throw a banquet for a local party official the whole hoping that he would change his mind they asked secretary when was the party official they asked him please reconsider this decision please intervene on our behalf please allow us to marr client mr jin told mr wang at the banquet my at that point i don't believe that anyone knew what the birth control committee director didn't know and finally i think it's a last ditch effort is the way i read the record mr ginn has revealed that  coercion i think the record is satisfactory that it was a forced abortion and i think at the time that was the question but then it was it was it's acknowledged that it was a pull of abortion it was forced because it has been revealed the wife was pregnant she she knew what would happen if they knew because she was going to the countryside to have the baby and it was going to be just fine but when he revealed it and they have the abortion his response was to come to the united states so  only as i understand it if they are married if they're husband and wife right now in ma we said all right they did everything they possibly could to be married they lived together they made plans to come to the united states and therefore because they couldn't get the marriage that was valid for religious and other purposes recognized that they were married for purpose our immigration laws i understand that's right now the problem here i think that judge ferris is handing and i must say i and two is that i am not seeing how beyond the fact that they  that there was a dowry and they wanted to get married in one thousand nine hundred nine after that point that there was there was any really after after he decided to come to the united states if there was anything that indicated that there was the same kind of relationship that there was you know well a few things in response in ma there was there's basically one sentence in the opinion that says that they had a traditional marriage that's the sum total of the record on on that on that union if i when i read the briefs in line and again they were it was very sparse on exactly what they did i think here the evidence is just a strong one he paid as father that dowry and and then they went to the birth control committee to get approval and they said no you can't get married i think at that point mr jinnah taken all the necessary steps to become pregnant i think in nothing about it he says that he's there and then there's a series of letters i don't know whether they've been translated but the only translation we have been told about was her letter where she spoke to him why don't you return to china and marry me now is that a letter from wife but the letter from the wife on the july two thousand letter also referred to didn't she say that why don't you return to china and marry me right they were not married in anything in a formal sen referred to mr jin as her husband and mr james father as her father in law so i think that the july two thousand record two thousand letter supports the contention that they were in fact married at that time but let me ceremony they're not married and you say they can be married even though they didn't have a formal ceremony there were all the other quote from it's a holding out and being married is that they they did the two dish you whine drink and that's what they did and i think that the record is a lot greater than that as far as what they do to demonstrate their marriage but i would like to reserve and let you people give you a minute the issue squarely i pointing out that there are insufficient insufficient indices marriage in this case under the law case there was a formal ceremony according to chinese custom here is we have a situation where we have a forty two year old who's a businessman he's a successful businessman running business in several cities in china putting beijing and he chooses a seventeen year old from has forced one of his the any of the other locations and the local province they say well she have to try and treat here and there was the opportunity we believe that if they could have gone to another location and become married think in july of two thousand she does write a letter which i think it's very important in this case she does you know when are you coming back to marry me and that's why she's twenty one she's not twenty three inches indicating at twenty one she can be married and she wants is i understand that your argument is not that that it's not that it's only the absence of the ceremony that makes this an anon marriage it's all of the circumstances right in other words but they used th that you just made an assertion that isn't that hasn't been found so i don't think we can find it under insurance say well we're going to decide this on a different ground than the vi he did make it a different  husband and wife that we have to send it back for the cia to consider that but i think that the cia did look at that for some of the best and they settled on the fact that there was a traditional traditional ceremony and where do you want us to make that a bright line rule i don't think you are arguing that here they don't have a formal ceremony they can never be married and i found that seems to be what they were there with the b a was doing do you disagree with that or can you show me but once the couple reached the legal age of marriage they were able to receive the certificate from the government which recognized their marriage as a de facto marriage because they had a wedding ceremony according to custom now did is your argument that that did that did not happen here in china becomes the united states and makes two in the record there's no show of number one that he has attempted to register the marriage even after she was saying in two thousand i'm look i'm twenty one i'd like to get married but you know i want to return to china and then second there's been no record of this absent any showing of support factor for while she's been in china but it shows that she goes back to work after he leaves and she has progressed through the macia determine the status of the couple in this case the case should be for me and it don't bet on that at the moment because what we've got to do is decide on the record that is before us now don't we absolutely have to decide it on the record traditional ceremony but when they got to the time when they when they were of the legal age to marry they went and got it registered now the government says that didn't happen here and that didn't happen