please the court i'm matthew culkin representing the petitioners it's similar to that the last case that was heard this also involves the issue as to whether or not an individual maintains a well founded fear of future  persecution and in this situation there was also no incidence of past persecution however there were some specific findings by the finder of fact with regards to credibility and there was a determination possibility that she would be subjected to persecution if she were if she were to return to china and this basis was on her religious beliefs and the the basis for the claim was the fact that the chinese government is specifically targeting certain no no she's got no pastors accused she's got fear of future verses that it's clear we don't have the presumption that that's correct and so the burden is squarely on the petitioners shoulders here but we would respectfully submit that that burden is is very proof of individual lies risk the proof of individualized risk with regards to the these petitioners is that they went back they actually did their due diligence as they returned back to china they searched out a church where they would be able to worship they went to a government sanctioned a church which they found to be deficient for with regards to their religious beliefs because the religious doctrine was was bastardized to include elements that were not in conformity with the scriptures so they they sought out underground churches where they would be able to practice their religion and it was not easy for them to do so and when they found one that was satisfactory to their to their needs they spoke to the pressures of this underground church and the individuals of that church attested to the fact that they were being targeted by the chinese government that they were being harassed and persecuted and that they would have their ability to freely practice their religion in these underground churches was limited at best they had to go ahead and  that this level of who where it doesn't even appear that your clients are saying i'm going to go back to this house church but they want to go back to the church that means that you're going to need to show that there is general persecution of those who are in house churches which might mean that pretty much anybody in china going to house churches old dribble for asylum and so that narrows the group of individuals that is because it puts her at heightened scrutiny the individuals that are providing these services are obviously being targeted harshly this circuit has ruled very recently that that within the last month that there were reasonable possibilities of your overturn based on past persecution claim of a chinese christian but the record of before the court both at the trial level and that which was reviewed by the board of immigration appeals had ample evidence of the fact that there was a large increase forty two percent increase of evidence especially to the government persecuting christians and that was back in two thousand and thirteen and a lthough it's this is not before the court today the country conditions have have gotten exponentially worse since this application was filed and we have sought to correct this through other means by filing motions to reopen to consider additional evidence of  the changed material changing country conditions by the minute who are your clients harmed harassed or threatened in any way in what you describe as their due diligence trip back to mainland china they were not however they were limited in their ability to practice their religion as a result of this the in positions of the chinese government they tried to find a church that the church was not practiced it was not preaching the scripture as that is written they went to an underground church they were not able to freely practice there because of the limitations that were placed on the underground church so their ability so they were spaced their ability to practice to freely practice their religion was minimized when they returned to china and so with the law with regards to asylum it is there's two ways of looking at that what they would you describe how they would back you know they looked at a state sanctioned church not to their liking  their understanding of how they read the scriptures they went to an underground church which they thought met their personal requirements my question is anything happened to them we are not asserting that there was any grounds  persecution here so there was nothing that would rise to the level of more than potentially mere harassment which does not and it doesn't rise to the level of what is necessary for it to constitute past persecution and that's why we have to show that there is lowest burdens to clear and in all of law as high as the burden is it in a criminal town taxed for her beyond a reasonable doubt this is likewise low and it's not a mathematical equation that the court should be engaging in as to whether and how many individuals a practice a certain religion are being subject to persecution in order for an individual to establish that they have an objective fear of going back of persecution on account of their religious beliefs this must be done on a case by case basis so by looking at and seizing upon a numerical figure of the record and comparing it to the overall population of practicing christians petitioner are currently being persecuted on account of their religious beliefs in large numbers and those numbers according the record back in two thousand and thirteen were increasing by a substantial percentage  targeted for harm or personally place in danger so she cannot establish the reasonable possibility of being singled out for persecution under this standard or disfavored group analyses petitioner also fail to show a pattern or practice of persecution against similarly situated church members the record clearly shows that there were fact that in instances of persecution in two thousand and twelve of those five thousand four hundred and forty two were actually church leaders when there's actually tens of millions of actually practicing underground church members upon looking at this evidence the agency determined that the pattern of acts that the that there was no pattern or practice of persecution in china with regard to underground church members with regard to the agencies you said a mathematical computation i would submit that it was probably them trying to provide additional analysis and trying to dart to term and her likelihood of future persecution based on additional evidence in the record  because the petition had not established that she was in a disfavored group it may be quite reasonable for them to have used this and rebut it evidence that's in a record to determine whether or not given the circumstances of a non pattern or persecution systemic it's not right spread that maybe this calculation might provide additional evidence as to whether or not she is likely to be persecuted we would also submit that given that all evidence relevant to the likelihood of  should be considered it probably would have been a abuse of discretion for the board not to consider that information even if it wasn't exact it wasn't a complete total but that was the evidence that it was provided and that was the evidence that it actually evaluated so based on that long the petitioner actually had identified herself with the group and she also submitted evidence that family members back home were being persecuted or family and a friend were harmed in the same way she alleged that she would be harmed and in law they decided or concluded that that was insufficient to establish her individualized fear and then she was quiet she was required to have her own personal connection with the danger not that she has necessarily be harmed with regards to the evidence of record we would like to point out the fact that there was in addition to that five thousand dollars persecuted number there was additional evidence which was included in the ministry and in this raid record  protestant movement and that china's act of the government is actively taking steps to was actively taking steps to eliminate the practice of christianity within the country the administrative record also includes in addition to the forty two percent which i mentioned before fifteen or one hundred and fifty of the ministry of record there was a congressional executive commission annual report which shows that the chinese constitution does not protect freedom of religion there was other report there was a human rights reports there was a united commission of international freedom report all showing that chinese christians were being targeted and that goes to the fact that whether or not all of this evidence which is part of the record which was not considered in any meaningful way other than the only thing that the  immigration judge in the board of immigration appeals really focused in on was that five thousand number and the this circuit has ruled where where if the board fails to consider the totality of the evidence call the holder six