or right to the chase your honour's or issue is this substantial evidence does not support the immigration judge finding that petition and provided any material support to the maoists organization those three months may june or july before departing nepal what is clear is that titian would testify that approximately a month after turning sixteen the maoist came to her parents home and there was contact with the maoists that was in two thousand and one the record must be removed and to determine of any material support or applies based upon those we months as it is unclear in the record and at this point i'll take questions from the court the record is unclear whether any assistance was provided in those three months after the designation was made by the state department not whether it was mine  court allison i go united states department of justice civil division office of immigration litigation representing the respondent the agency in this case found that m agency found that the maoists were tier three organization from two thousand and one until two thousand and four and then was designated a tier two organization for that several month period but the board found the agency both the immigration judge and the board affirmed found that she provided at least fifty seven dollars instances of food and drinks to the maoists during this period of time so mr your mind is ignoring that part of the decision but even if even if and the and the evidence clearly supports that honest in her interview notes she explains and in her declaration she explains the time period on feb th two thousand and twelve at the last hearing in this case she conceded that her answers at her interview were correct but even if the court were took to find that there was no curial support in this case the agency gave multiple reasons for denying her claim the agency found that she was not credible that she did not experience past persecution that there was no nexus between the harm that she claimed and any grounds supported by the i n a they also found that she did not have a well founded fear of persecution or that she and that she had not shown a likelihood of future torture so the court  can decide the case on any of those alternate grounds and does not have to read which the material support and finding this evidence in the rocket substantially supports all of the agency's decisions in that case when you look at her credibility you know she now claims that she was beaten by the maoists and beaten by the police and those are the two separate instances in which on which her asylum claim is base but in her original interview all she said was that the maoists jerked around and slapped tar that was she had stated that in her dekel in her original declaration and then again at her interview you can see that the assessment to refer citing the material support bar came out her testimony then escalated and she started to describe the treatment as a beating the same thing with the police our interaction with the police in our interview and let me press for a moment after interview she was represented by an attorney so she had legal help at her interview and as i previously said she  agreed conceded that february two thousand and twelve hearing that those statements were correct and that that hearing she claimed that she was randomly hit by the police that hit they were randomly swing betimes and she happened to be hit on the cheek she described the fact that she was arrested and held for one day and she said her situation was disgusting because she was in a urine filled cell but she never  stated that she was harmed beyond that she said they did not take her name they did not take her address or telephone number and they jerked around and there were no conditions on her release again judge with a recommendation to deny her claim she escalated you know her testimony claiming that she was beaten and swollen around and but the immigration judge cited all of these reasons they're very apparent on the record this is standard you know and the petitioner argues that these don't you know these don't have anything to do with her claim that there are ten general to her claim but they go to the very heart of her claim this is a pre real i d act case so the reasons that the immigration judge gave had to have been specific and cogent and had to go to you know the heart of her claim but of course they do because the treatment by the maoists was the very heart of her claim that she was being persecuted by them and whether she was jerked and slapped around which would be harassment and would necessarily be persecution or whether she was beaten the evidence about what she did for the maoists is vague as to timing and therefore we can't be sure there's not enough evidence to say that she did that   and found that they were under two or three so how does that work or either of those findings by the b a a wrong well i think mr herman is is not even conceding that there were findings but i would point the court to the immigration judge's decision on on on the record page to twenty nine the immigration judge said that the respondents interactions with the maoist occurred between tw the immigration judge explains the difference and found that there were two separate incidents she she had said that the her interaction with the maoists began in two thousand and one they came every two weeks which is a finding that that of human gratian judge they came every two weeks and she was forced to provide them food every time that they came and the immigration judge separated and this was actually the subject o separately does ignited in two thousand and four as if he were to look at it does not know it before you go further so the government's position is that even if there was no evidence and of course i'm not either way on whether there is even if there were no evidence that she did anything after april two thousand and four when they were designated a cure to organization that she is still barred based on what occurred  before april of two thousand and four yes absolutely because there were two separate time periods in fact the board on page five of the administrat three organization we agree with the immigration judge and so the board also affirmed that finding ok and is there also a finding that she provided after the date in april two of between april of two thousand for and specifically we agree with the immigration judge to doing this bi weekly provision of food had some effect on instances of findings of providing food to the maoists so the board separated out these two b because there were separate does ignitions right and in the government's view if the if there is substantial evidence to support either of those conclusions we deny review yes certainly because the petitioner argues that you know she does not disagree with the finding that she provided food during this period and but she argues that it's not material because it was snacks or it was but as the core pointed out you know the board issued a decision in matter of a c i m that said quantitative amount of support does not matter there is no you know feel of whether a floor in the eye and a and as a court pointed was something separate when they were there they and to be fed she testified that they targeted her family because they were wealthy they had a very successful carpet owning business and they were looking for money and that was another  inconsistency when she was interviewed by the asylum officer she said plainly and clearly my for my turn to pay them gave them money when they came the asylum officer said oh did you give the money no my parents did and then she tried to to walk that is well so what's the date that they targeted her for tea and cookies that was it that was a separate you know sort of up a percocet you could say that you know they came from money and they and they got snacks but  she's claiming that she was not claiming that she provided every fact she denied that she ever provided them with money but said that she did feed them and there's you know a lot of precedent saying  providing sustenance to a terrorist organization is material support because it allows them to continue you know as the board found you know a basic human needs that the person s is satisfying that allowed them to continue to engage in their other activities the agency also found that there was no nexus to to a ground supported by a and again as i as i said she said that her family she claims persecution by the maoists you know as part of a particular social group being her family but in order for that to work for her under the i and they this persecutors had to have persecuted her family for a reason under the eye in a political opinion or religion or ethnicity and again she clearly stated that they came after her family because they were wealthy and they wanted money and it was basically extortion which is a crime it's not persecution and as far as the police her interaction with the police you know always here mine i think that's my bell going off i would just wrap up by saying all of the grounds of the agency provided are supported by substantial evidence and i would ask the court to deny her petition thank  finding that she provided any material support after the maoists were designated terrorist organization in april two thousand and four which forced the issue regarding the un designated three we assert that the court we led on the wrong background in one the court looked at the state department reports from two thousand and ten in two thousand and eleven rather than the state department courts in twenty million forty two thousand  regarding what the how the state department perceived the maoist organizations the court can't rely simply on respondents testimony that they were bombing and kidnapping people to declare they were  of twenty for the past sixteen years has been politically active on behalf of tibet has a reasonable fear of being sent after being sent back to the poll whether she could be persecuted based upon that