warning me please to court gary your i mean on behalf of titian or misled one of little over nine years ago this case was heard before this court in this court found that the immigration judge improperly conflated the requirements under cat relief with with those four sided case was remanded back to the immigration court with instructions to determine if my client misled and was eligible for protection under under cat using the proper standards the court failed to use proper standards be i uphold the immigration judge decision in the case is back before this court is standard for immigration cannot be conflated with the standard for asylum immigration judge started his analysis by discussing the prior negative adverse credibility finding in her asylum claim back in two thousand and three this court specifically instructed we have hel evidence to find my client was eligible under cat the objective evidence if the court had looked at it would have seen the two thousand and nine country report which indicates that members of falun gong in china are subject to torture in mental institutions where they are forced to undergo electric shock therapy strapped to beds for days at a time beaten and force fed medications in jackson's on the felon gone issue i thought the problem was that  in the prior decision we basically in affirming the adverse credibility decision we basically said upheld the determination that she wasn't a real practitioner falling down well you'll tell even though that's what she testified we they found her they didn't believe or correct you fell that you were held out of the holding that the immigration judge found that there was not enough cooperate in evidence the issue regarding the convention against torture is separate and distinct from her issue of past persecution baseband asylum the court immigration court must look at the objective evidence to determine is it more likely than not the somebody somebody will be tortured upon their return to their country it doesn't even have put my big question is whether she was she testified that she practiced at home and sometimes in the park the judge never found her testimony to not be credible there was no path to answer your question there was no corroborating evidence but this is a real  reveal idea case therefore testimony alone is sufficient if found to be credible because the immigration judge did not find it negative credibility then she's there's a presumption of credit of credit of credibility  so there's a presumption of credibility she's met her burden to show that she will practice falun gong and the second prong his is the evidence the objective evidence enough to establish that should be torture i just read from the two thousand one country port this court has and that's enough she can't create a witness of none is available so the judge wanted to really dig deeper then he should but he didn't she testified this is your strongest argument well i think the strongest argument your hon on family planning population control problem issue well is a court has learned probably in january of this year china change the law saying that she's not allowed to have future people out they have two children well  it's uncertain what the issue will how that will be address now but what is certain is my climate slint did have a third child here in the united states which would not have ever been permitted if she w three now she does have three but we're not arguing that issue because it's unclear how the implementation of the new wall will be put into it was what we should we do it that will we should put it on hold and  today and i think we have to set it aside because there's not enough evidence to argue that the immigration court or the b i a was wrong in holding that it's uncertain what the result of the then today i guess the best way i can capsulize it is that although we found her we upheld the adverse credibility determination in the prior proceeding in the rin regarding the credibility findings of twenty eight j letter filed regarding whether or not the board somehow erred in its treatment of that the credibility finding remains but there's no question that the past persecution the petitioner alleged was found to be not quite able if the board her discredit testimony so what we have here and what the board ultimately finds that we have uncorroborated evidence of current and potential future following on practice and the background information in the board properly found that that was insufficient to demonstrate the petition herself would be subject to torture when you're looking at a cat claim it's not sufficient to say that someone once was torture is being tortured with a drug that back to yourself here there is no evidence in the record that anybody in china has any interest in the petition relating to follow whatsoever demonstrate eligibility for kat you have to actually show that you yourself will be at risk of being tortured if we turn to the country of origin here the background information is insufficient to show that the petitioner herself will be subjected to torture there is no evidence in the record to ever be in a falun gong practitioners correct there's no evidence in the record that china still has any interest in the petition or if they ever had any interest in the petitioner there was that the average credibility finding a garden that still remains what is the current country reports show which currently that two thousand will like today i'm not sure what the two thousand i guess will be fourteen fifteen will be the most recent one i'm not sure what that says about that on or about falling down but it hasn't been submitted it's not it wasn't before the board when take judicial notice that you could your honor i just i simply don't know what the current country report was i mean it wasn't something that was before the board so the board certainly didn't consider that in the coming to its conclusion as she has two children eleven year old boy and nine year old girl that were born here apparently a third that's news to me iran got a three is always a good number and  and her sister was vera lies after returning with two children from japan is that i don't believe that's the case your honor well that's what my no sure there was a and b cousin who was sterilized in china who had two children in china there were two other people from japan i don't know if they were related to push british are ample of that they were but as the board found japan in united states are not the same countries so the way that they may be treated in china and show that they were both returning right i believe so yes but the petitioner seems to be arguing or seems to be withdrawing the claim as are pertains to the family planning policies would be the most appropriate and i don't know that because it's a new claim essentially but not of the third child there's a new policy i think a motion to reopen would be the proper avenue for that as opposed to reminding it for considering a claim that was never lives ation after they returned from japan with multiple showed the cousin i did not the cousins children were born in china as far as the sister all assume that it was  the information that she provided was somewhat unclear about what practices how the family crack practice scheme was implemented in her particular locality correct right so we have a after the board's decision in this case we issued a decision in a case called jale is that also wrong i'm familiar with the wrong case that i was yeah versus holder in two thousand and seven case a chemical it came up in  the context of a motion to reopen and it dealt with the claim she wanted to reopen the petition want to reopen because she was be returning to china having had children in the united states and so the just the law there's a lot of discussion in that case that all you need really but important is evidence about the present the province level and here there is i'm aware of your mom so then she's got three kids that's an asset for right in terms of in terms of brain power in this country and terms of citizenry  and they we need we need more people don't we as warren buffett said so why would we want to toss or we want to take the kids whether we want these children to be raised without a mother second sometimes a third time in the and that work to get i mean if you believe that there was a legal layer in the issue in the case then that's that's one thing but sending it back to remained for you know that you know again that depends more on if the petitioner if that's something that she would be interested in from what i gather from the previous mediation is that the petitioners decision it's herself to take the case out so if she wishes to pursue that i would be happy to talk to v h s and see if that is something that is available but from what i've seen it wasn't the government's withdrawal of anything it was the petitioners decision to pursue the m the petition for review well you know these people are death groups sometimes taking her and pushing her out of the country after all these here and we've got three kids were americans and their birth right i just want to clarify something at the time of the remained the petitioner my client wasn't trying to rehabilitate her prior testimony whatsoever the judge was asking her questions about it it was her duty to answer she was only there to testify but one thing she's a pact she's a practicer practitioner she's a falun gong so when the board and the immigration judge over plainly over relied on the prior adverse credibility finding against my client they failed to provide a meaningful review of the relevant country conditions and the standards under kat and so we asked this court once again to remain and to the immigration judge to apply the pro correct two thousand and seven and we were counsel at the wee man hearing in two thousand and ten yes we were yes or one to bring all this we did and the judge didn't have any further questions regarding of practice she was focusing on the prior adverse credibility and his demeanor and his questioning led me to believe that he was not going to disregard that and allow her to overcome that neg pass negative credibility finding but this was not part of the request by the court it was take start from a new and determine whether or not she's practicing falun gong now that was the only issue before the immigration judge and because he didn't hold a negative credibility finding it must be presume she was credible and that she is a practicing a practitioner of falun gong and if she is i guess the courts review the country reports both today and from two thousand and nine and you'll see that chinese government treats found on members as criminals as member of cults and puts them in mental institutions there's no ambiguity about that what's your view  adverse credibility finding and the failure on the last three men to present any corroborating evidence other than her testimony that's a really tough argument to make you want to send us back to  my job is to get the best outcome for my client and if that's what the core police i have no problem with that ok thank you counsel thank you john the matter is submitted at this time and  if we decide if we think that mediation is an appropriate procedure you'll hear from us