circumstances under the law in order to have a timely application correct your honor so mr son's political enemies crafted a carefully calculated plan to obtain his removal to china through several instances of tips to immigration authorities something the immigration judge find basically that your client wasn't credible including because your client was a knowing participant in various fraudulent schemes i don't believe there was an explicit adverse credibility determination your honor and i believe the government has conceded that on that the footnote on page thirty two of the government's brief the aisle janay said it casts doubt on your client's credibility his weak moral compass is providing false information and under oath and false tax returns correct your honor but but on on other facts the court did find the immigration courts did find mr son to be credible and those are the facts that go to the heart of his asylum application so those are the labor abuses by legends down on guam and those are the campaign of harassment by individuals uncle longer connected with chinese enterprises that are government owned but in your case your client  cooperation with the u s authorities to expose the illicit conduct of these chinese government affiliated entities through submitting hundreds and hundreds of pages of evidence to the u s attorney's office and other agencies throughout two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen he thought that that was his best way to lawfully stay in the united states and when he learned that he could apply for asylum based on this very same facts that were underlying his application for a you visa he timely applied within six months  doesn't help him a bit in terms of the timing doesn't it well there is law in this in the ninth circuit you are the horror in the akari cases that say that the one year exceptions to the one year rule for filing an asylum application which are changed circumstances in extraordinary circumstances should be construed liberally because but the one that you're talking about if i understand it correctly you're saying that your client suddenly discovered he was eligible for asylum there's a one year statute for filing for asylum that was many many years ago so he suddenly discovers this but it was many many years ago and the case law says that is not a gene circumstance so where you already go from there so they were continuing that the case law also says that it need not be just one factor and immediately he knows that he needs to apply the applicant can wait for as many as many back as it doesn't really matter does it because when when if you waits all those years and then suddenly you've got these factors and then he applies for asylum and the primary basis of it is that he's discovered the law permits him to do that our case law says that doesn't work so in july two thousand and thirteen for the first time mr simon knew with certainty that he was very likely to be removed back to china and that is enemies political enemies on account of correct protected grounds which is labor speech against these companies client's speculation that he'd be harmed if he returned to china i don't think that they that the immigration judge said that there was no so so this brings me to another point where the i j a and the b a erred they they fundamentally misapplied the country conditions reports from china because mr son's testimony was that he would be protection prosecuted and potentially tortured by chinese authorities who were affiliated with these businesses that he spoke out against while in guam and previously in china it was all speculation he'd never been tortured he's never been thread nobody is this is all and speculation he was the victim of several violent events on a man who were affiliated  it's by his employer who was had fallen out with his uncle that's not the kind of thing he is a legend so these men are tied up with with chinese government owned businesses other dissidents and laws and regulations that don't adequately protect whistleblowers in the country of china those cooperate corroborate mr son's otherwise credible testimony and because the i g did not find him to be incredible or an incredible he's entitled to the presumption on appeal under the immigration nationality under the i ne that his testimony was credible the presumption yes i'm going to believe so so taking that credit credibility presumption and applying the  so he did not demonstrate that he timely found his asylum application and three in the alternative the petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution well founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground on july sixteenth two thousand and fifteen it has been confirmed the petitioner has bomb entirely left the united states and returned to china without seeking advance parole under the regulations eight c f r twelve zero eight point eight an alien who returns to the who leaves the united states without first seeking advance parole has been deemed to abandon his applications for asylum and withholding of removal that's the case here even if the court does asylum application it's a january the sixteenth two thousand and fourteen the petitioner is arguing that it was that the fact that the petitioner had went to various u s agencies in april two thousand and twelve to give them information regarding the unfair labor practices of the prior employer that is a change circumstance that would excuse the time limit on filing and seeking asylum  moving on with the timeliness issue the position argues that because he was so blue on his prior employer in april two thousand and twelve that that was a change circumstance however there's no evidence of that at the time that the petition i was that time that he was actually able to seek asylum petition and attempts to argue that in july two thousand and thirteen as when he first became aware of the fact that he could seek asylum after being i'm clear as to why the petitioner would then wait from july two thousand and thirteen to january two thousand and fourteen seek asylum although the petitioner tries to argue that this is a reasonable delay if it's not especially since counsel was retained in this case also moving on to that actual merits of his asylum application which is this past persecution a well founded fear claim there's no evidence that the against the hotel that he worked for in beijing two is that he suffered persecution at the hands of the his prior employers in guam three that because he had a child out of wedlock he will suffer economic deprivation and four because of his whistle blowing which could be construed as a political opinion he was sacked for future persecution of return to china all these claims are not does not have substantial evidence and the record to support them first looking at the first claim regarding his economic deprivation be based on the lawsuit that he had found against the hotel in beijing one this occurred in two thousand and three there's no evidence in the record that the position are suffer any economic deprivation the petitioner was able to find other employment he was able to obtain a obtain accounting license he was able to attend a government university and he was able to gain employment which he  court in regards to his claims against his prior employer second the petitioner claims he suffered both past persecution has a well founded fear of future persecution or the fact that he has suffered persecution and there's no there's no doubt that past persecution in the united state our persecution occurred in the united states can that be passed persecution in the country that the petitioner is faring returning in this instance the exodus and that hurt and guam had occurred between two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine the petitioner clearly  indicated in his opening brief that these incidents all begin after his uncle refused to give one of the managers at legend stone which was the prior employer a free condominium so these incidents does not demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground and that's the government's position these incidents against the prior the prior employer are all based on personal retribution and not based on a political opinion are whistle blowing the other two sorry the other two cranes one being that the birth of his shadow out of wedlock this occurred in october twenty ninth two thousand and eleven the petitioner claims that his child would not be able to be registered with the household registry unless he relinquished his parents over his parental rights there's no evidence in the record to show that one he was ever fined for having this child out of wedlock out of wedlock he did indicate that the check out that hit that the chinese government would order fines but i know point in time to he present any evidence that such an order was employed minute also the petitioner fiances letter failed to mention any five's that was imposed against her therefore the position i have failed to show that the birth of his daughter out of wedlock constitute a past persecution are that he has a fear of future persecution on that plane so so on appeal that is the presumption and that is in that's in the real idea act of two thousand and five that says we're no could adversely credibility determination is explicitly made there's a presumption of credibility on appeal  this case was moot in their briefing they didn't know that mr sun had returned to china and we acknowledge that in our brief as well in our reply i'm actually no it wasn't in our reply was in a footnote to our opening brief however mr son's application  remain ripe even if the applicant has room to return to their home country first because there is continuing injury from the order of removal and second because there is a five year ban on reactionary that they will that they'll still not be able to come back to united states for five years so this case does remain ripe for this court to consider i have about thirty seconds left i just wanted to make the final point that mr stein only needs to establish  that a political motive in and persecution on a protective ground was one reason and one central reason for why he was persecuted and he's done that here through his testimony the government and the a have dismissed these actions as mere personal dislike however they're more than that these are criminals who are connected to the chinese government and government owned enterprises and they do seek to do harm to mr sonner upon his return to china