a for asylum now unlike the previous case that the court just heard we don't need to go into the sort of fine line drawing whether this is a barber case or somebody who's shooting someone because we have a factual finding from the immigration judge which is in permit and i would like to draw the court's attention to the immigration judges finding which the board of immigration feels that it got that it's at the administrative record page sixty seven and  immigration judge said and i quote this court concludes that this respondent was a supervisor in the technical investigations branch of detectives who were involved or may have been involved in investigations against political dissidents i consider that to be an explosive than fairly revolutionary injection of a new ingredient into the persecution of other standard as the that the court know in order to be disqualified for asylum as a persecutor of others one must have ordered inside at the system or otherwise participated in the persecution of others what we have here is an immigration judge saying look you might over that that that we don't need to go to substantial evidence is an expensive record there were interpreter problems at one point the court certified interpreter wrote a letter to the judge saying that you've made a mistake this was an extremely convoluted and complex factual record now all all we know the difficulties with the factual record in this case is that there were there was a paralegal organization involved in the in preparing the first declaration there was another declaration and finally a third declaration and we simply don't know what the  of that factual record all we know is in his it's a very parsimonious decision in terms of fact findings but what we do know is the i g concluding that he was involved or may have been involved is talking about involvement he's talking about the people under your client's supervision that would be correct and and he and the finding is that collectively absolutely however it's crucial to see that that that opinion is premised on the first part of the paragraph which is the involved or may have been involved and may have been involved they can't be separated the opinion of the court that he is this is premised on him being involved in supervising people who may have persecuted others and i will probably need to reserve the rest of my  even ordered persecution but at the top of the page things statement again and that is the statement the board refers to this court is of the opinion that the respondent held a position with the chiang high public security bureau which w things with need to have high skilled special skill to do it for instance like investigating telephone conversation wiretapping and other things other electronic  and their opposition to the regime this was heightened when pardon visitors came and they rounded up lots of people he had some battles whether he personally arrested them are not does not matter in this interpretation of the sta to individuals who have persecuted others and it's a national policy and this person clearly assisted and otherwise participated in the persecution of others he ha china if you went back because they felt that he would be he would be in prison for taking away national secrets and would be tortured in prison so there is no flaw in this decision it is  and it is the fair finding it is based on the regulation and the statute and again remember the regulation the burden of proof has a terrible burden of proof it's not only to prove that he is eligible for asylum however i cannot get around the fact that he does make a finding about involved or may have been involved and the board of immigration never disavowed that line and i think it's absolutely critical we don't know what the board