put forth two claims one is a political opinion slash one child policy and one is a religious claim so far as the political opinion clinger that they found no resistance and no past persecution and i have three points for me as far as other resistance petitioner was denied a birth permit but went ahead and wanted to have the child anyway that's one he hit his wife a farmer so he lost his life leader just well is any evidence in the record as to how he supported himself after he was deprived of his land there is no evidence but i would point out the board cited to matter of t z and in that very case it's the government's actions sanctions that reduce an applicant to an impoverished existence may amount to persecution even if the victim retains ability to afford the bare essentials of li sure substantial economic deprivation can constitute persecution not mere economic disadvantage that's why i asked the question as to what evidence in the record shows that he suffered that type of harm afterwards he was not asked what he did for employment after he no longer was a farmer but then on top of that i would also argue that the wife's abortion is a factor it's not the sole factor but we have to factor that in under  and under matter of j s and then he also testified credibly that his wife was depressed and had nightmares and had to had an i u d put in so that couldn't have made his life pleasant but that's as far as political opinion and then with respect to religion again he was found credible and he was pain for seventeen days and i would challenge the government to point out even a single case where the tension this long was not found to be persecution i mean they say to do and they say to pursue for sub was detained for forty six hours and goo was detained for only three days so our petitioner was detained six times when he couldn't stand still they beat him with a baton and he testified he was interrogated second a third time and he was beaten both of those times and unlike gu the government did not lose interest in him because he had police continue to look for him after he left china and he even testified on page one forty three of the administrative record that he was waiting for a sentence from the court when he escaped china so i would argue that certainly under current those other is a ten percent chance of future for persecution yeah we had so many cases on immigration cases on calendar day i'm not sure i want to get the facts correct here but the i j a was concerned that he did not produce somebody to verify his continued participation as a christian he yes yeah well he provided a church testified for remember correctly that in china he was baptized by his friend or brother in law or somebody and then he was baptized for a second and then he was in the i j raise concerns but that why would you go through a second baptism correct but i think he gave a good explanation you know that he wasn't ready and basically the pastor told them that the first one was not formal so that he the i j a alert him to the need to provide corroborating evidence not until her oral decision you raised that issue before the b i a but in your blue brief to us you didn't raise it because they they did not reach that decision the board specifically says we need not to address the corroborate an issue that's because they found a lack of past person  certainly lack that it was exhausted to the board i was just curious why i may have run out of space the thirty page limit and then one other factor that the board didn't consider is that he testified he couldn't go to the house church anymore and i mean that's that's the most strongest element of well is that he was forbidden to practice faith and i think that's best persecution right there that he was not able to  go to the house church anymore that he at the practice of home do you agree that the standard we applied is whether or not the evidence compels the conclusion that the decision is incorrect i do yanar but would you agree on i suspect you're not going to get the three highlighted factor in this case for compulsion if any exist is in length of time he was incarcerated yes i think and but there isn't a case that focuses on links hiten factor is or there is not such a case however all the cases on the opposite side a very short detentions three days one day day and the fifteen day and if you separate them the prosecution is very similar three day it's my position i was beaten three times and i think that would be very close to go well  reserve two minutes yes  guy on behalf of the attorney general reasonable minds can disagree whether on this record other resistance or past persecution was a stablished however under the court's  of other resistance petitioner allied to the family planning authorities that is that there's not even evidence that they family planning authorities knew that he was lying to them that is persecution is not supported by evidence as judged when pointed out there is no evidence of any economic deprivation we do know he lost land that's it he then remained in china for five years got a chinese passport got a visa to the united states and flew to the united states that's all we know it's petitioners burden of proof not the government's burden to somehow ask him questions about how he meets the burden particularly when you've represented by an attorney he didn't present that evidence on past persecution the record doesn't compel reversal because persecution is an extreme concept no one's asking the court or anyone to get to condone the actions of chinese police in this case but if you shift over to to the religion called the religion claim no one's asking the court to condone that behavior but how about just a tad but just the notion of detention i mean if there was somebody and incarcerate them for you here what was it seventeen days seventeen days i mean she you know well yes your honor will lead well and good who are useful guide posts but we have to start with the fact that the attorney general makes his determination of first incident so the most important distinction is the level of and again this is about condoning this behavior but in the glow he was be in the face hit in the face and then tongue tied to a chair in the beat with a rock the v in this case he said the second time during the second what you should call the beating they hit him again now which is your wants to interpret that to some expansive i was beaten but that's not what the record compels this is a factual determination he was hit during the first incident with a rod the second rod and the second time there was physical punishment is what he says we don't have any elaboration and we don't have compared to go where leap particularly is any lasting injury or damage it's not necessary that there be injury but certainly is a factor what was the last injury and go well they said that he had bruises on his face that is an injury and well there's no there is no evidence of hospitalization for bruising is the extent of extended injury but i think if the court has often found that say being hit their sensitive area face often is brought up in cases where persecution is found again being hit in the back with a rod isn't certainly not a pleasant experience but it's nothing compared to say and leave being beaten in the face so you're bloodied and left out in a cold winter day for an hour and then it's undoubtedly not as severe as lee but comes pretty close to doesn't it in the instance since the length of detention was roughly the same the petitioner in each case was forced to basically renounce his faith and then was let go upon signing and a confession affidavit multiple interrogations multiple beatings with a rod no medical treatment necessary so that's why i'm trying to get you to distinguish the facts and so you're saying that it's not the length of detention which is roughly the same but it's really the severity of the beatings so verities of the physical confrontation certainly is less or undeniably the length and attention here is two days longer but there is no bright line rule about that reason all min sort of gut reaction to that but i think the other thing we can look at along with quo is a very of the assaulting goo that did not compel the notion of being persecuted he was hit in the back ten times with a rod do so is not necessarily persecution to future persecution or i believe there is a bit of a disagreement about what the board found here the board's footnote about religious practice in the united states under our current case law that was you know she didn't he didn't get advance notice that he was going to need cooperation you're footnote addresses that you're footnote acknowledges ren right but also acknowledges at we made it clear that ren was a holding back and that notice was an notice in an opportunity to produce cooperate in evidence was required you know i can't figure out what happened on that because he did raise it to the to the b i e in his in his brief and it seems to present reason rather dropped out i mean under today under our current law today that's it what happened here was an error of law on that issue and it should go back for him to produce his pastor well the difficulty in cases like this is we expect issues raised legal clear but we need an argument as sewell what in this case how what occurred here is not sufficient at a hearing many years before the immigration judge had petition on the stand and asked about the certificates that he had presented because  a concern of fraudulent abortion certificates you know it's a common problem those documents were sent to the friends except burke's experts unfortunately d h has no longer has the resources to test those documents jane i understand the difficulty is that i can stand here right now on an argument that i don't know if you believe he attends a church nearby and presumably had he known that he needed to bring somebody from his church you could you know maybe it would have been possible for him to read somebody of his church to testify that he was active in the church which would have been some of the concern that the i j a had about whether he was truly a christian perhaps but even regardless of that the record doesn't compel the conclusion that he faces future persecution this claim of wasn't there evidence in the record that that some of the police kept going to his home looking for him there's evidence that they went once and they asked the wife where he was and that he illegally fled it's unclear how he legally fled given he had a passport from the chinese government a visa from the u s government and left china with the parent no problem the difficulty is even though there's not a credibility finding he didn't illegally flee we don't know what that means that's present evidence and it's not that dissimilar from google where the court said there was no compelling evidence of future persecution  i think this case is very different from gu and counsel is mistaken that gu had to report he only reported once or twice that's actually one of the major elements of the decision that police lost interest in him after he reported a couple times he no longer had to report and they never told him he could not go to the house church he decided on his own he wasn't going to attend that's not the case here moreover  counsel mentioned there is a case called kwan the holder that says no physical injuries are required this case is just like what i would like to read to you the very conclusion of well from this very court they state the police then beat mr gwo in detain them for fifteen days this treatment rises to the level of persecution on account of his religion and i don't know how much more like whoa it can get and  practice of religion was halted was an isolated encounter one time no more interest in him not the case here he did not say the police only came to look for him once what he said is the police continued looking for him and then he gave the date on which they came the last time that implies they came a number of times to look for him and finally there was no credibility issues in this case the judge did not make an adverse credible if i mean she had concerns  which she raised in our old decision for the first time but there was no credibility issue in this case i think and also could we consider cumulatively the harm from his one claim and his second claim i mean certainly that under babylon would rise to the level of persecution if we consider everything cumulatively because this gentleman suffered harm on both counts of