honor that's what i'm asking you first of all i would i would argue that the evidence that cooperating evidence in the record combined with a position of credible i'm not sure that i understand the answer to my question if we decide and i'm not saying that we're going to cold damp and if we decide to remain and because there was no adequate notice and opt for opportunity to or vikram bringing evidence then we don't the morning here on news may please the court my name is kosi you can maureen i represent the united states attorney general in this case this petition for view should be denied because the evidence does not compel the conclusion that petitioners suffer with their error of law here though your hon well if i understand your question correctly or from to the corroboration for yes well that decision it's not necessary to reach that decision because of the alternative finding about by the board that there's not been any harm alleged that rises to the level of past or future persecution with respect to the corroboration issue to answer your honor's question that issue has not been exhausted he never contested notice and furthermore it's not absolutely clear that rand would apply in a case that correct yes that's correct your honor we take his testimonies yes right of you accept his testimony is true and what do you feel wage is that his wife was sterilized without her knowledge and furthermore that he was fined ten thousand are obese however that's not it's not the part of the case this is positive your honor the harm it's just a question of has he a sufficient level of harm and he just has not your honor so the question about other resistance might be an issue in other cases but it's just not the case and here an issue in this case you honor and as far as the corroboration finding the government doesn't really does well the government's government's position that there was no other resistance in this case with the focus the bench on what is dispositive the case is that he just has not of harm that rises to the level of future persecution or past persecution as even the immigration judge observed he's not even afraid of any harm upon return to china his wife has already been sterilized years already paid the fin ten thousand r b c is not alleged and you can correct me if i'm wrong but when i read the i g his decision he identified a number of items of evidence that he would like to have seen as core operating  mr couse sort of story about what happened that current that is correct your honor and that is a separate finding so in addition to the harm not rising to the level of persecution there is an alternative basis for denying this petition for review  he again he has asserted that his wife had undergone an unwanted sterilization procedure and also that he was fined ten thousand are obese but those two facts alone does not compel a finding of past persecution as evidenced by this court's decision his marriage he was fined forty thousand are these of which you could he could not even pay half and he had to go into hiding for twelve years or so and this court found that that did not rise to the level of persecution it was harm but it was not the kind of harm that are asylum and withholding and he has paid that and he has not testified to any economic persecution he hasn't given any details about how this imposition of this fine with the payment of the fine was owners or  essentials of life which would be the standard for economic persecution well you would indicated earlier in your argument that even if we assume that he's able to provide additional evidence it still wouldn't be enough to rise to the level of persecution or other resistance that's required how do we know what additional evidence he might be able to come up with that that might change well the question is what has he alleged the corroborating evidence is there to support his burden of proof but what he has alleged in this case is harm to his wife and the ten thousand army fine no matter how much he corroborates those two harms there's no way he can establish past persecution at least compellingly also you know also testified that that is true question thank you it does count your honor but does it not enough well the question is does it compel a finding of past persecution and as this court stated it or held in maine she versus holder in two thousand and fourteen even a forced abortion and  dollars ation in addition to a forty thousand harby fine did not compel a finding of past persecution certainly in this case where petitioner has undoubtedly suffered some harm but has been fined a lesser amount which she was able to pay any provided no framework was dicta or holding so the government does not concede any error in this case the board found that petitioner did not corroborate his claims that is supported by substantial evidence and petition has not exhausted any claim that he had not had sufficient notice of the c rating evidence that was necessary to meet its burden of proof so although that's a separate alternative defensible dispositive grounds for denying this petition for review again the government like to focus on the the lowest hanging raised was present in such a way that it necessarily subsume the notice issue and that's essentially what we have here not not so your honor why not first of all the petition is very specific that he's arguing that he submitted sufficient was he wanted other evidence to be specifically pointed he pointed to what he didn't present that much is true but there was also other evidence particularly the floating population certificate which contradicted his claim that he was fined ten thousand are in these in this case so it's not just that he didn't submit enough evidence it's that the evidence he submitted contradicted some of his claims and so this case might not implicate renne at all but regardless the dispositive issue in this case is that petition