purpose of addressing safety issues and an adequate compensation at his factory for so doing at the demonstration he was struck by three policemen and knocked to the ground he was arrested for failing to obtain a permit to demonstrate however during during interrogations the petitioner was accused of disturbing the social security and trying to overthrow the government consul before you this out to the court if i may the application which is certainly part of the record surely and certainly submitted and part of the record on all  fact specifically identify with holding not only that but because the one year issue was really not in contention and in fact the one year issue was really not even a challenged  on on the vi a level certainly the whole point of the briefs that was addressed to the b i a had to be withholding specifically and not asylum so i guess you'd say well where we  we really member holding the b i should have known that and therefore when he ruled he ruled on withholding and therefore the key issues properly you that would be your argument that right i would certainly assert to the court that withholding was the specific point of the appeal that address that issue specifically on the relevant cases and i would even concur with that with the the standard that was that we set forth and even also the government brief in response concurred with the standard that was set forth as the ninth circuit case of fisher versus ins which states that the correct correct tort teria for distinguishing prohibited persecution from their prosecution is disproportionately severe punishment and pretextual prosecution and we would certainly assert your honor that the facts in this case definitely qualify would go to the fact that it was protection perhaps and the cases that were cited in the in the brief that was filed with the court each of those cases there were at least three cases which we cited to the court each of those cases there was a as a a rest that was arguably lawful owner and but in the subsequent treatment of the prisoner it became apparent that the treatment of the press  never went far beyond just just the waffle rest and he didn't have to go that far out of reveal today do you opinion i don't believe we do your honor and so but certainly if we did need to go that far i have if i may address that specific issue your honor the petitioner's testimony himself which the judge and the immigration court found credible the petitioner testified if i had applied for it referring to the permit it definitely would have been turned down a petition or further justified it was the doing of the chinese government all the time although always announce and this is specifically in his testimony more than one occasion but the but the state department the state department country condition report that the government itself submitted as evidence in this case specifically  states that also it states at page sixteen a page fifty six under the heading freedom of peaceful assembly and association i quote and this is the state department retort report regarding china the constitution of china provides for freedom of peaceful assembly however the government severely restricts this right in practice it goes on to say authorities deny permits and quickly move to suppress demonstrations involving expression of dissenting political views at times police used excessive force against demonstrators demonstrations with political or social things were often broken up and quickly and violently so you see  honor that was not just the petitioners specific opinion in this case but but our own government finds that that is specifically the practice in the by the government of china so indeed that is a credible  immigration judges finding that this particular practice even if it constituted persecution didn't fall under one of the five protect i would say i would again refer to what happened at the interrogation the police arrested this man allegedly for not obtaining a very permit but when they took him to the police station did their interrogation deal with the permit no no they accused him of of trying to overthrow the government i can't conceive of how you would find any more of a political opinion case either specific political opinion on the part of the petitioner or imputed political opinion on the part of the petitioner i can imagine how you would find more specifically that this was in fact protected under political opinion on that ground thank you or i think you know we hear from the government sc are made please the court in goldman on behalf of the attorney general this court should uphold it and see decision and deny the petition for a view if this court does get to the merits of the claim that this case is about prosecution it was a prosecution a legitimate prosecution for failure to to the that's true to the question in this case and i think it's the courts down the issue in this case was this a pretextual situation in this case he was arrested for demonstrating without a permit he was detained for demonstrating without a permit he was questioned he was interrogated more than once for demonstrating without a permit and ultimately he was punished for service training without a permit well he was certainly punished he was never charged no what he said here you have to letter campaign and you would be just fine except for the statements that you're trying to overthrow the government and those were clearly politically directed why why don't those statements indicate that this falls within the pretextual prosecution because obviously demonstrations and there are all sorts of laws that can be applied to stop peaceful protests and we have to look very carefully at where those are protector on if you just quizzed about that saying we're running you you dance around a permit fine but when then it takes it to the next level you say you're trying to overthrow the government he gets abuse there and that's off to labor reeducation reeducation camp that's usually you know re education implies wealth course a different context perhaps in china but i think in the normal context well they have to reorient your political views i think i think the answer is certainly this is the case would be a lot easier for the government if those questions were never asked about trying to overthrow the government but the question before this court under the standard view that this court has to has to look at this case through questions not whether there's some evidence or another possible conclusion that there was a political element to this the question is  up to the evidence compel that conclusion and i have the i can't stand here and say that there was no question asked about politics there was mr loose found credible he says he was asked about overthrowing the government but he was also asked a lot of questions and as he testified who's behind you who's setting up this demonstration why are you demonstrating the he was arrested for demonstrating without a permit he was detained for demonstrating without a permit the question then is was it reasonable for the immigration judge conclude that's why he was arrested and prosecuted and the government's government would submit that on all that evidence that was certainly a reasonable conclusion it's certainly possible the immigration judge certainly could have said you know what as your hon reeducated you were asked these questions you know what this was pretextual but that's a possible conclusion that the immigration judge could have reached the evidence in this case doesn't compel the conclusion that that's what was going on in this case you know they didn't know that had to do with the stated reason for the rest of us are these are the questioners that that evidence is in the record absolutely but the other evidence that's on the record and the government's point there is that the over the other evidence that's in the record is that he knew he had to get a permit the government suppressing peaceful protest i think the problem with that your honor is that the facts in this case are not consistent with the state department report that if if official would have this court believe that there's no demonstrations allowed there's absolutely no freedom of speech the facts in this case belie that where petitioner mr lew is allowed to bring three hundred some people to a government office to demonstrate for the better part of the day it's the with the state department report would whatever but what happens after that you're beaten who's behind this you're trying to overthrow the government you need to be reeducated does start to make take a lot of facially plausible  why would that be relevant to the fact that he was demonstrating that a permit that should have been on the end of the inquiry unless you're trying to find out and suppress political dissent that well i mean that's the argument i'm not quarreling with you i'm just certainly a possible argument  it comes back to this to lose burden for this court to show that the evidence as it was noted compels a different conclusion i don't get i can't stand here and say there's no evidence that there was some element of politics a couple points in response to your question of the government would also submit that the actual mistreatment that occurred in this case did not rise to the level of persecution persecution is an extreme concept that harm in this case while not to be condoned simply did not rise to the level of certainly some of the other cases that have mr lu cites where people were detained for much longer periods beaten much more severely mr lu was was slapped kicked again the government doesn't condone that in any way but it didn't rise to the level of of persecution and was the question what's the what's a pivotal question we must answer when we decide whether we agree with you or that we don't don't we just look to see excessive that's that's yes yes yes and in this case compared to the other cases that even mr lew cites government with some of that it was it was not excessive and i think that the question was asked earlier what more could what more could have been shown i think the answer is if mr livid team had come into the immigration court and said they'd yeah they brought me downtown for demonstrating without a permit but the minute i walked in the door they made it very clear that they were after me politically and that's not what happened this case he was question about why he was demonstrating without a permit if they had if he had testified that he was specifically sent to that labor camp because of political reasons but he didn't do that that's the kind of evidence that would certainly make the government's case a lot harder but it's simply not in this record but he was sent to a labor reeducation camp for two months so he was detained away from his father's family which you can't say he was only in prison for are in  jail for a couple of days and ignore their lame reeducation camps lou they are my only point there is that the specific reason it's not like this record has charging documents or anything like that that would make it real clear here's why they're not starting that against the government's response that your honour's that he could have testified even if there's no documents to support what he's saying he was found credible he could have come into court and said you're being sent to a labor reeducation camp because of your politics they don't come in and make legal conclusions but i would submit that there are certainly cases where they go into court and the to the immigration court and they say i was detained i was questioned for political reasons i was told you're being sent to a labor reeducation ca just heard will be submitted