country and i think the key thing here is understanding her fear that she had no assurances that she would not be kicked out of the united states until she met office the immigration lawyer who said that she might have a claim for a morning around as my name is katherine clarke and i'm representing the government the question here is whether the evidence compels the conclusion that gen a university educated accountant who had had contact with the immigration system in the united states beginning hundred six was telling the truth when she stated that she when she implausibly argued that she could not find a doctor until she consulted with her immigration lawyer four years after she from her a u d however she did nothing to remove that you'd see or even to have it examined until she consulted with her immigration lawyer in two thousand and two and  inserted and that the chinese government would not allow or to remove that and she had requested permission to remove there you do six or seven times and that is why she decided to come to the united states she  also claims that she did not want to get in trouble for removing that but she did and when she applied for asylum she had no guarantee that that application would be granted and so simply learning in the united states so she doesn't explain the difference that she claims to a felt between the ten years that she had to say that it was allegedly causing her so much trouble and all of this done in two thousand and two when she learned about asylum and allegedly that was the point where she felt comfortable there was no guarantee that that application would be granted and there was no guarantee that she would be able to stay here additionally the immigration judge questioned gens claim that she would face persecution upon return to china for having applied for asylum for them and for the  china allegedly learning that she had sought asylum based on the family planning policy is a show of freedom possible testimony about her family's allegedly extern from their apartment in china that was the finding of the immigration judge as well she claimed that symptoms the finding and and the objective evidence really only establishes and that she had symptoms at the time of her i u d was removed in two thousand and two and that she had the i u d in fact removed in two thousand and two what what the judge found implausible was that there were that there would be both at the same time two things occurring one that the ten years of her render symptoms that against june herself conceded made her feel like she was dying and the and her doctor's affidavit regarding how long she saw the doctor and additionally the questionable nature of the uv action notice and the testimony regarding the alleged eviction  s for example is there any expert testimony about the nature of the family planning policy or a copy of it or something like that that would support doing the family planning issues but the actual notice problems also went to the heart of her claim provided additional bits for the immigration judges finding that she was dishonest overall and that and provided additional substantial evidence for that conclusion and the evidence just does not compel the conclusion that jen has a reasonable fear either based on her family planning policy alone or the fact that she applied for asylum the immigration judge discredited her testimony regarding both of her her claims and the petitioner here today does concede that the inference that the immigration judge me it was understandable and given the standard of review in would like to jump right in to the most important issues that i think there are respond to some of the issues raised in the end the case in the response brief and if you of course have any questions on any aspect of the case i'm happy