terminations if the i g finds the respondent or petitioner credible it's presumed that everything he says is true so in this case he was found credible in a pre real id i case everything has been said is true the other issue now is well founded fear in this case is very similar to the john case the only difference being that in jong the applicant detained but there are similarities otherwise there was a huge fine petitioner's wife was for seven abortion prior that she was forced to insert an i u d and the government in china had requested that or demanded that either her or him get sterilized so in junge the court did find that the petitioners issue of well founded fear as the court knows the immigration sorry the b i a found that the immigration judge committed clear error in one of his fact finding analysis the judge said that respondent had no difficulty or suffer no difficulties between one thousand nine hundred nine two thousand and four however that wasn't the  case when the authorities aborted the child of his wife they said that either he or she needs to be sterilized he basically goes into hiding for three and a half years therefore he was never sterilized however he was hiding from the void authorities for his entire time period thus there was difficulty so we as well as dissent argued that kid should be sent back for improper fact finding on the b ice part and we find that that's the case here it's a matter of fact even if you read a decision to be a mixed areas in their decision they say that that's an alternative argument you're advancing which one that it should be best impactor for improper facts right that's an alternative argument correct however we would find that you know based on his credible testimony he testified that if i go back i will be sterilized or she will be sterilized and the only reason why she wasn't sterilized is because she told the authorities you know i'm by myself i have no husband here you know it's a very conservative society and we can't have i can't have babies and she testified in court to that and  court accepted that she said was true what he said was true so with the presumed credibility i'm presuming everything is true if you tells the judge if i go back i will be sterilized i mean there's no issue there's the well founded fear and ten percent chance of all founded fear based on cardozo i mean it should be at the very least a finding that he has a well funded you're  persecution would we send that back or we would just simply conclude that since found his testimony credible but that in fact is the basis for a well founded fear of future persecution and that's the end of the story i think you could because for is legally is what's going to happen whether there is a well founded fear or not is a legal conclusion ok and this is correct with him start from there and what the legal the legal conclusion something concrete would be more along the lines of a well he was in hiding as well he was in hiding but being in hiding still doesn't negate the fact that during that five year period in which he was in hiding still nothing happened to sterilize him there was notification that petitioner needed to submit for sterilization sterilization and such and such a day this was only a verbal threat that was made against  catching the family clan or told his mother that when he returned he would be sterilized in quotes for sure and quote they look for him for six years that's pretty persistent and doesn't government have a problem here i mean if if if there were a question about this man's credibility which there is not in this case that would be one thing but this is not the united states i think i find it you know and usually governments taking this position six years looking for somebody continually going back that's pretty persistent it's a country filled with little it billions of people and they were focused enough that they kept coming back and they told his mother that if he did come back would be sterilized for sure what more do you need to establish a reasonable fear of future persecution i would argue something a little bit more than just simply knocking on the door asking where what do you need what more would be some kind of in connection with a family planning measures no but in my brief i do mention certain cases in which the board found it significant that there was a warrant issued for the person's arrest or there was not a warrant issued for the person  and i would argue that another fact goes against of reasonableness of that contention that he will be sterilized and that's the fact which the board also relied upon that his wife remained in china unharmed she was also in hiding with petition er for those five years and nothing happened to her and then after petitioner left in two thousand and four she came out of hiding moved back to the official residence lived openly and was not sterilized women don't get pregnant when their husbands that is and that may or may not be the same as in our society and petitioner did make make that explanation but the board was not required to accept that explanation is true that was just hi speculation on his part and when there's other facts in the record to support equally permissible conclusion that the petitioner's wife just simply wasn't sterilized because the authorities were just not going to do it and that's also