the issue of undermining by the return of the petitioner to the country of persecution and and recent case of impact think the issue failed to see any of the individual episodes of mistreatment as rising to the level of persecution in cumulation i believe we have board should have found there to be undermined his claim by returning to the country the claim persecution i would respectfully argue that that  his experiences to the point where he could not make a claim of persecution and and in support of that by analogy we offered the court cases involving change country reasons of desperations of family members being in danger i but the reason isn't necessarily determined if what happened to him when he was there if he went back to the country and did not suffer any untoward events that would militate toward a finding that there is no fear of teacher persecution witness had there been no on toward events yesterday on what happened there upon his return that you a minimum prosecution based on the force based on the statement that he was forced to sign that he had engaged in hooliganism and beating of a police officer just so i understand are you saying that these events took submit that this episode involving the beating of the last episode was was the third time this had happened to him and there was threats against his family and  detention and beating them know your are no you're and then there was but there was also the destruction of his business and the threats made to him by way of his employee who was beaten and used as an example and the message sent through the beaten employee that this is going to happen to you if you continue to meddle i think that that's that's that is also an episode too for the court to consider so the b s found that your clients return to armenia when several incidents of alleged persecution here are really transparent significantly undermined his claim of a well founded fear future persecution what do you say to that thank you judge i think there's a bit of a bootstrapping there in position on the one hand they're saying there isn't anything there there with respect to the episodes prior to his first trip to the united states and then they're saying well by returning he's undermined it that would be that would be my response to your honor's question that that that they can't have it this the wife being visited by the police your own before her change of address i'm moving to another location ever he doesn't he's even there there been nothing with respect to any loved ones that's not a requisite for him to have a claim of persecution of personally being pers your honor smith please the court your brinkman on behalf of the attorney general this sort of pushing is a native in citizen of armenia who overstayed his visa and applied for asylum the immigration judge found that i disclaim on three alternate grounds he was not credible failed to corroborate his claim and he failed to show past persecution or well founded fear of future persecution let me ask you this is one of the issues liz's his failure to provide corroboration for some his claims an immigration judge request corroboration and give him an opportunity to provide you know he know the english judge did not do that because at the time these laws seem to be that and that's what the immigration judge cited didn't give him notice an opportunity respond if he had exhausted a clean that he wasn't given an opportunity to provide corroborated to the board we would probably concede err on the point that the immigration judge approach required to do th so doesn't make here any deficiency on the part of the i j a in terms of making an everest credibility determination the credibility term nation is your right there is no adverse credibility terminations now it still sashing argument in the brief but if you get past that assume that was there that's what you're asking yes the past persecution finding and well found if you're finding or independent of the corroboration finding so you would have to remain and you could just know this man in two thousand snakes went to the police station was detained for thirty minutes beaten by the police is not persecution you know because he was there several cases where similar facts and they said the board said that's not sufficient to rise to the level of persecution we cited you mentioned preside we started doing our brief i think we cited kumar similar short detentions with beating but no severe injuries and that's not sufficient to rise to the level of well founded fear of future persecution well the board pointed out several factors that suggest that he's no longer at risk of being harmed for one they released and i mean that if they really wanted to harm him it's unclear why they would have released and  his wife and children remain in armenia to this day they're not being harmed but he said that his wife had to relocate and that she was visiting what your response to that he was visited but no harm came to her and that was back in two thousand and seven so we're now almost ten years past that and he in the brief he suggests that his wife and children safety isn't really relevant because they're not similarly situated to him but he claimed that the police actually arrested his daughter to get to him so the fact they haven't gone after his family member since that time does suggest the police are no longer interested in him he said that he really no longer supports this political party the national unity party he said that the party is really no longer active in armenia so it's unclear why the government would be interested in harming him for supporting that party  while the board didn't mention the state department reports i've looked through it i don't see anything about political repression of national unity party members and the states before report actually says that the armenian government is trying to come back human trafficking and one of the claims he made was that he was involved in combating human trafficking so the government came after him all those factors i think support the finding that there is no well founded fear future persecution in this case aberration and give the petitioner opportunity to prove i'm conceding that that is not a lot of the circuit that is required you know this but it wasn't then it wasn't and it's a kind of to the board is is the only defense i'm making to that corroboration finding that he's now saying he was required to get a notice an opportunity well if the law is changed in the circuit they have to exhaust we think so i mean someone think is a name the case is the most recent where they said rand is still good law and that was after all this happened two thousand and fourteen or fifteen i believe he was but your point is that regardless well it's exhausted or not e core of ration when when the petitioner raised the issue of the scarring on his hand your so the particular issue and that's been raised here is whether or not candidate who was part of a coalition the significance of this person's political claim is in that he was opposed to the existing government not so much