the board of immigration heels that leaves us all wonder what parts of the underlying decision issued by the immigration judge the board intended to agree would i start with that issue because i think it's dispositive and because it  undercuts most of the attorney general's arguments and their opening brief the real question here is whether the court is reviewing the case decision or both a big decision and the immigration judge covered those issues and the board explicitly adopted the judge's decision in fact at page twenty four dollars of their brief train general are going to has quote that the board explicitly affirm the immigration judge entire decision if that were true if the board had adopted the judge's decision and this court would be written think both of these decision and the immigration judge's decision and things that the board had left out you could look back to the  so first the board told us they weren't adopting all of the judge's decision in st if you scan the decision you won't find the word adopt but looking to footnote to page three the board explicitly said it was not  part of the judge despite being on nexis it said it didn't have to reach that issue because it had disposed of another issue if the board intended to adopt all of the ideas findings as the attorney general argues as the attorney general wants to i think stretch that whole repeatedly this court has set and deciding whether we're reviewing the judge's decision we have to see whether the board expressly adopted that's the phrase this court is used expressly adopted the i just decision if we're guessing whether that's a car zone in my case the court issued last year where the court said only to the extent that i adopted the judge's findings are they before the court at all the same was true in the funny case i think from from several years ago of i guess we're kind of calling it a carve out a sort of a blanket adoption with some exception is there anything that that in the regs that would say to be a cannot do you know when there is there is a regulation on those three choices that page twenty one dollars twenty two cents of the board has roughly three choices two of them are by regulation and one of them is by a precedent decision called matter bravado the board can issue its own decision just writing its own new reasons for the agency's decision and that case the board's decision is before the court it can also adopt and affirm the judge's decision under that decision matter immigration judges decision and then the court reviews the immigrations judge's decision as if it's the only decision that the agency here the board didn't do any of those three things but it did list of bunch of new reasons for the agency's decision missed a lot of the issue i think perhaps most importantly the past persecution issue because those law versus holder factors the factors that determine whether certain threats are serious enough as a matter of law to amount to persecution the board didn't address at all and if the board intended to adopt the immigration judge decision at a minimum it seems like the board would need to say the work dots or cite matter bonnell or said the regulation about adopting  about reviewing this past persecution decision for clear ever but it cites a series of cases that talk about what amounts of harm are enough to be persecution as a matter of law and the be dealing with facts and using the player standard it doesn't make any sense why they would then cite string of cases about what harms rights the level of persecution and that's essentially what the board has done here we think the board is used the wrong standard the findings of fact so that's one issue that survives i think even if the court were to hold that the board had up at the edges decision the nd is that just on the on the facts even if the court had intended to adopt the ideas findings about threats what was missing and also in the series of cases the board cited pages three dollars and four dollars each of those d there was no medical record at all about how the threats that affected the person that's what the court said was edges findings no reasonable fact finder could have made that conclusion under this record the two remaining issues that survived i think are on the issue of future persecution i think that my time has run out judge had made no such fact but this court has said the board can't do its own fact finding and nd it said the words that it agreed with the judge's finding that relocation would be reasonable when even the attorney general admits age thirty two of the brief but the immigration judge isn't this the court the court should deny the position for vo because the board properly reviewed immigration judges determinations and there is no record evidence compelling reversal of the agency's past persecution determination or as the japs would leave reasonable protected and that would be the legal determination that i think perhaps you're thinking of does something constitute a social goals and that would be the application of lot of facts that would be more of that next question that the motives of germany send itself would give actual talks of the difference between appearance option and affirming the reasoning behind immigration judges determination and this has been an area of litigation as to what exactly is brought through and the result is generally that if the board affirms the immigration judges determination we can let the immigration judges decision to see what lies behind that the clues and we can look to see what the board is actually as far a s the board adopts the immigration judges determination the language from her bonnet talks about immigration judges determination becoming as if it was the ports determination so instead of just looking to see who was behind the decision and looking to see what reasoning is  immigration judges analysis was and that's how the consider the fact of finding that's how it would be defensible to say that there's no clear error in the immigration judges actual finding the board wasn't required to go through each individual factual determination the recognition that the standard of past persecution wasn't matt and citing all of those cases that go between pages three and four and the analysis and responding and mr diaz arguments on appeal that obviously was not something that the immigration judge considered because  it is not exactly this case in that case the board rejected some of the factual findings that the immigration judges me that did not happen here the board to the reject any of the findings that the immigration judge me for just declined to address the ne determination and that's at no two but it does not reject any of the factual findings we see that rejection sometimes and footnote saying we distance ourselves did the formal sit ins like we do not affirm the immigration board so it is very different than garcia mada in which case the board rejected some findings and reached a conclusion and it was unclear under which the interview was doing that because it has rejected some of those factual determination i would prefer the court to it's me here ramos case which is very very similar to this one and that case there was a businessman father who was kidnapped and he was and his brother was also hurt the position of brother was also kidnapped the petitioner was threatened by phone and she and her mother were cut off by the call in a quote great time of an ease for her and she suffered no other personal harm in this court found that that did not rise symptoms from things that happens as being insufficient to cause to pass persecution which is just what we have here in this to understand that lee was very upset about what happened but the traumatic experience and her  a level of persecution and in general this court requires their acts to have immediacy and specificity they must be more than just direct in menacing and i think that we just don't reach that standard in this case and finally just for the charge of the objectively reasonable fear of future persecution i would refer to the court on page nineteen of the record it's the immigration judges decision where the immigration judge and valuated really piece ten and to find that thank you thank you mister mr hopping i don't think you have any rebuttal but would you like a minute to respond using consider this effects were not in dispute immigration judge found her credible and credited her medical evidence that's at ages eight dollars eighty nine cents that addendum his conclusion was merely that the harm quote did not rise to the level of persecution that's a question of law and to the extent that the board says it was using clear error to review it that it can't be any other way because she was a disputing any findings of fact she wasn't disputing that what she had gone through or whether there was trauma the only thing that was in dispute really was whether those harms that the credit rowsell of the persecution the board can review that for clear