mr mowle is a fifty four year old married farmer from the province of heeb a china he his wife and two adult sons remaining in the people's republic of china at this time we are asking or for additional opposite in such a case it's my position that there are two primary issues in this case the first is whether the i j a and the board erred in making an adverse credibility determination and so would you focus on the other half are true for least a moment the board says we take as credible everything he said but it doesn't rise to the level of past persecution correct the board actually is maintaining also that the credibility lacks political opinion claim and that he failed to establish or meet the burden of past persecution or well founded right the one child claim yes the board says we accept your testimony does it not correct it but we don't think this stuff all adds up to past persecution or act so deal with that tell us why does it  does feel it does meet the burden of past persecution because mr mao was arrested twice he was detained for a total of ten days he was interrogated he was beaten  not only by the police but also by the end mates at the instigation of the authorities he was fine and it wasn't an insignificant amount it was five thousand  i consider this whole history of a measures taken against him for his opposition to the one child policy or did it just focus on the sterilization alon a says that response has not presented evidence that he was ever persecuted for trying to avoid the procedure for arguing with family planning officials that you just recounted a whole bunch of evidence that is that would amount to persecution so how do we reconcile that mr mad did provide documentary evidence concerning the  that effect however there was no documentary evidence mr mack testified that after he paid the fine his wife paid the fine that she was given a receipt however at some future point the receipt was lost so again i ask is there a discussion in the i've i've looked at it before you can find it but one of the things you're saying is all these things together and up to persecution to be i said yes your wife was sterilized yes she went to hiding it's a matter of cetera but are some things i think they don't discuss and i'm just trying to figure out if i'm right on that do they is the fine and its impact discussed by the b i i believe it was indeed to be a decision because i just went up on average credibility but the b a and did that right she says that it should have taken everything that he said as true and there was a whole history here that was that he see let me let me tell you what i understand your best argument to be that i think it's the argument you're making but maybe i'm wrong which is that to be i a e a and did the  credibility determination by the i j and therefore we want to take his testimony is true and the question is whether his testimony taken as true adds up to past persecution and in determining that it seems to me we need to look at this testimony including the fine and everything else he testified about and when to be i discussed it i'm not sure if they discussed all the testimony now that's my that's that's my operating premised on trying to see a record ok but not to be a decision is it i don't know the thing referred to it so it would help you if it's not there i mean that's what we're reviewing if you want to take some time to look at it  evidence and the board doesn't discuss it so the board says we're discussing is we agree with this conclusion that he hasn't established who is based on passed by the policy because he only had for a week and it was his wife who was sterilized and there was no evidence that he was ever persecuted and then he goes on and but there is some evidence that he was persecuted he was fined your honor the board does not need to provide an exit he says on every piece of evidence that it considers and we would not presume that it has ignored anything in the reticent that evidence of other resistance that we've discussed in our cases and thinking and if you have i mean we have several cases on that that if there's like a period of who are the spouse is showing resistance to the family planning policy that and these he's beaten for that are fine for that that that is evidence of other resistance that would amount to persecution yes you know that is one factor that this court has looked at that could satisfy the other resistance element however in jang as you mentioned there were a whole series of other some previous difficulties and then he was fined and that seems to me the evidence that the board ought to consider in arriving at its decision and then you're saying well they don't have to tell you they've considered it and that's why i'm having some difficulties which could you respond to that i understand your difficulty because the board doesn't spell it out and articulate every piece of evidence although we would not presume that it has ignored and you think in the sense that the impression that they didn't consider it as i saw a whole host of when they fled i mean this seems like there's so much more to this picture than what the cia appears to have considered with a series of incidents it's important also parse it out between acts that were actually done to petitioner because it is his claim that we must look at and whether or not he was persecuted he was not sterilized he was not what you say you are telling me that if they that that he was complying and that he and his wife felt so threatened the but this sterilization that they that they fled their home and went into hiding we all start from this the premise that i think you're right in saying that the persecution of the wife by itself is not enough to establish persecution of him but he makes more claims than that and be i discusses only some of them and split even if it's even if it was clearly ronnie's it doesn't add up to enough and then they don't go on to discuss the stuff the deals directly with him so why shouldn't we send it back to them and say take a look it's the stuff the deals with him you might find it it doesn't  rise to past persecution that's up to you in the first instance but at least we'll know you've considered that's that's my dough i'm debts not if that's a question but it's also my donor with the case it may well be that the end of the day this stuff maybe i could find this stuff doesn't owe it up to past persecution but it's not clear that it isn't tender steers like extra fact it never discussed so what do we do with a case like that that's a question i understand your concern your honor but like i stated my position is that we believe that what has looked at all the evidence if you believe that otherwise yes it would it could be sent back for a decision in the first instance on that saying that those folks are have the ability to stay here they protected yes there have been cases like that a lot of cases like that i don't know why this one should be any different in this again you're on each case turns on the facts i know that i know that