you said in your brief though it may be relevant the mere ability to obtain a passport has done the menace a likelihood of persecution though it may be relevant tell me how you think it would be relevant it could be relevant argument in this brief is you think is any question that he's a chinese citizen and you say it may be relevant that suggest i think that was relevant to the issues in front of us no question in front of us about whether or not he's chinese required to find that i know you make an argument that they shouldn't find it and maybe a lot of people think that but are they required to find the issuance of the passport is not relevant at all  to issue a passport would you think that was relevant that's also relevant yes or no that is relevant yes so in other words giving him a passport is not relevant cannot cannot possibly be  he was issued a passport there's a committee there's a country report that says some people who are problems can't get it issue why can't the government you may not want to but you are your argument is the government is is not if we think you make of that argument or not what we would do or not maybe what ninety percent of people would do but the standard in the standard that any rational finder of fact would have to would be compelled to footnote in the opinion saying that the petitioners parents told him that the last time the local authorities came looking for him was in september two thousand yes mind you what's your response to that doesn't couldn't somewhere in in the pleadings that your client didn't talk to his parents any more after september two thousand and nine about whether the police were still looking for him so he didn't know you would on change country conditions in china this is an individual analysis v h s rebutting the presumption of a well founded fear by showing a fundamental change in petitioners personal circumstances which is allowed  that the passport was the central basis for the agency's determination that the chess had rebutted the presumption if you take a look at the board decision which is the final order of removal on review it starts with addressing the demonstrated absence of continuing police interest in petition and then it addresses the passport it's a totality of the circumstances announces to address this individual but titian has changed circumstances and there's at least two facts at the board relied on record facts and reasonable inferences from them and i'd like to start with the continuing the absence of continuing police interest you'll recall it's he is arrested and abused in april two thousand and nine he leaves the country in july two thousand and nine and the last time his parents had advised him that the police were looking for him back in china it was september last time they talked about that that i don't think that necessarily means that  the police weren't looking for him still well ma'am i would say it's a reasonable inference to conclude that the petitioner would have told the court obviously if they had discussed it and if the parents  getting i'm sure where you have this history is all but i think the government's position is we don't have any record information they will look at him in china after september of zero nine and we think a reasonable inference from that is there were no longer looking for it wrecked and then you also get moved to the past or what i take that to be used say a reasonable inference that if they issued the and a reasonable adjudicator must be compelled to reverse the agency's decision based on specific record facts as articulated by petition and what we look at though to decide what we are applying that to yes that i apologize for cutting you off because i am so genuinely puzzled by this so is it your position is say there's a fact like an issuance of a passport from which you can draw two reasonable inferences contradictory one would be they're not interested in him any more the other would be now they know exactly where he is if he tries to get back into the country they will either baria entry or punish him when he gets there too you could infer two different things from it or and there's even a third one there's no coordination at all between what's going on in china and this new york consulate office nobody right and left hands have no idea what they're doing lots of different inferences you could draw all of them would be reasonable if the government has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption is it sufficient for the government to point to one among many possible of view we believe that the agency expert in c turns with adjudicating these coins may may in its own judgment it permissible inference based on the facts but if it's not contrary to law does it have to infer that this is the more plausible of the inferences or is it enough do you see what i'm saying is true as didn't have the burden of proof if this weren't about rebutting a presumption if this were just i don't know as the subject of persecution or not then i totally agree the agency can pick one  we're the experts we're going without one but where the government has to rebut a presumption might it not be the case that you need more than to be able to say this is one among the possible inferences and for no particular reason we like this one well first of all your honor in response it i of the circumstances so i mean sorry it's a tell you the circumstance of the session by the agency to determine whether the presumption was rebutted they could they very well may have relied on the continuing absence of police interest again he testified in may and eleven and didn't offer any evidence that the police to come looking for him passive temporal nine now that's a record fact and it's again it's a totality circumstance so that record for can infer or inform what inference and it's like petitioner's then it becomes the departments to rebut by preponderance but ultimately it remains the petitioners burn to show that he or she is a refugee so that here the petitioner has the benefit of the presumption actually just simply draw a reasonable inference from record facts and go with it that is precisely what they do want to case by case basis and we believe that the inference drawn here under the totality of circumstances still persecuted in china where the record shows your honor is that yes they are the i j a did however take a new strait notice of more recent country conditions evidence and did point to a trend in recent found him credible second of all the government concedes that falun gong members are still persecuted in china third of all the last evidence actually in the record is that he was and that the police were still looking for him in china so how does the government rebut the presumption based on that evidence it seems to me the government is rebutting the presumption by a lack of at the end of the day we have to determine whether a well founded fear exists and the reality of the circumstance on the record is petitioner statement that the last time he was aware the police to come looking for him was a paper two thousand and nine he his counsel petitioner were given two with this will opportunities on both remains to present additional testimony or even conduct an individual hearing they declined to do so so by the time of the i j a slash the situation which is twenty twenty seventeen the agency may draw an inference that the police are no longer interested in this generally you think that the burden shifting regime plays any difference here at all plays any role because again just your description of they didn't put on new evidence they didn't show up with evidence of the police are still looking from him do you think it and so or does the and it is going back to the idea that the ultimate question is reasonable fear of persecution in your view does the part where the burden shifts to the government make any difference in the way we should  police to come looking for the petition and they also stressed that this gentleman was a low level practitioner he unknowingly distributed pamphlets years ago maybe you're answering my question but i'm not quick enough to figure out the connection i'm just asking you to explain to me what difference in your view did it make when the burden shifted to the government to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there had in fact been a change in circumstances that what what difference does that make in your view to the way we of proof matter to how you go about and what difference you get and presenting your case if it was just a case where say he had to stablish that he was being persecuted you would stand in front of us and go your facts one two and now shifted to you if i understand the question correctly if the bird is now shifted to you or you in the same place and you're entitled to any reasonable inference ors or something more than that is it does the fact that you have the burden of proof on this does that change the analysis at all your argument today in this case yes roger it does the analysis is now whether substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that the a just over a year and that under that scenario which we hear for today or you still entitled to the benefit of any reasonable inference another words he can give a great record indicates the police were looking for him was timber two thousand and nine isn't the more reasonable and likely inference that they know he's not there they're not going to spend the next don't know that your honor but the right did it but your honors the agency also did stress repeatedly that this was a man who had handed out their own gun and it was for a matter of hours on one occasion and did so unknowingly and they also made a point to conclude that he would not be brought back to the target zone of the chinese government upon his return in their opinion because he repeatedly stated he no longer intended to practice this religion me read the whole presumption right out of it because the one thing we know for sure given the i just credibility determination is they already persecuted him was for doing exactly that that's the point of the presumption were allowed it even though it shouldn't have happened because all along they mostly targeted the high level people it happened so that's the nature of the presumption we presume it happened once it's going to happen again so i don't see why it's helpful to know it's weird it happened the first time well yes it is we are going to happen the first time but it happened in thinking about what inferences one could reasonably draw from the passport it does seem that the fact that at the same time roughly that the passport was being issued everybody green's the local authorities were actually looking for him in indicates that his parents in china had told him since he came to the states that the police were looking for a possibly suggest was very early on september ninth possibly yes your honor but again yes sure but regardless even if the court there's a time there's that there's a possible time differential there especially because his personal stake dated september third two thousand and nine indicates that since he had come to the states he had talked to his parents and the parents of the police were looking for so that would but and for that to be right sorry i have this one last question for that to be right would have to assume like not only coordination between the new york consulate and the local authorities in china but like really up to the minute nation and so i am puzzled by the second part of the i g is opinion and this  in relocation which i'm not trying to get into but where the i j specifically finds there is no evidence in the record that chinese authorities communicate with one another and that the ability to receive a valid chinese passport  that there is no national system in place that all works local officials to what's going on at the new york consulate so what i do with that yes sir that was the point i was just going to approach if the court sees friction between these then it can conclude i think at the very least that issue of the passport indicates that some aspect of the federal or the china does not have mr dong as a target and that's why i think in part the agency in refer to the country conditions evidence that said that certain individuals who were deemed falun gong activists were exiled or not allowed back in to china so the past for at least indicates some evidence would you still be taking this position if it is the issuance of the passport would that alone be enough for the government to win issues of the past people correct but i'm just asking the question about the issuance of the passport generally it would that be and that would that issuance along carry an inference there the country's not really concerned about it because otherwise they wouldn't have represents an indication that the country doesn't care about it yes sure you don't have to have proof of it it's just what you are entitled to think of what the agency is entitled to what infer reasonably not manifestly contrary law or the record at hand yes that's what the agency does so again that's a federal indication they relied on a local indication and those two record facts justify their conclusion that it's dangerous and successfully rebutted the presumption or sewing a do we have to find to do is it do you think it's true that it means nothing or other words can the government decide it means something can the government decide it means something or they have to decide it means