squarely within the ninth circuit decision in life it's a twenty fourteen decision seven seven three third one six six in that case then a real court found that  material there's no effort to materially alter her facts of the case to establish that claim both missions came on cross examination the petitioner did not embellish her claim on direct examination later when asked questions on cross additional information came out under the board's decision applicants could not add details to the claim and that has not been the precedent of this court which has over and over held that the mere omissions of details are not enough to support an adverse credibility finding and the second emission yawners which is testified that a bribe had to be paid by the snakehead to get her to leave the country under light beholder this is this is not substantive she already in her statement indicated that she needed the help of a cousin to escape from china for she already alluded to the fact that she needed an intermediary to leave and then she provided additional details and she didn't know the ninth circuit found it significant that the immigration judge did not make asked a question of whether or not the application was complete i do believe it could make a difference however i think it would be more a case like some on of where the person added huge events where he said though i was arrested three more times and i was persecuted and i was his whole claim when she testified on direct she was consistent and did not add anything to her claim and then saw her claim was in fact complete and then on cross additional questions came up pertaining to third parties and so additional information was provided so yes although the judge did ask is your whole claim is your statement complete and it was complete it was just that additional information was provided to other parties version well they also denied it based on future fear they said even if credible there is no future here and again we would disagree if the court finds that the missions are not meetings and that they wanted to arrest or so i would argue that there is a ten percent future fear that's all you have to stablish in the ninth circuit and if the police believe that she is the organizer of this gathering then i do believe she's established well founded fear and i would ask the court to remain for the board to decide or for the judge to decide if there is a future for your in her case thank you and i would reserve the other five minutes thank you testimony second credible testimony excuse me second in the alternative even if her testimony were believed she failed to show a well founded fear of future persecution average credibility decision is something which if she put in would have enhanced your client and the fact that they're actually in detention they continued to be in detention up to this point in time  would enhance her client it's not like she's a meeting something that under minds her claim of asylum how can that possibly support an average credibility decision well if you tales that you serve to enhance someone's claim when they come out after the fact maybe indicative of some kind of embellishments and other words that may or may not be true and here that seems to be the case in her asylum application misfiled described her leaving china in just one sentence if they were detained at the time she laughed and so how is she i mean how is she necessarily at the time she does or asylum application even to know decisions based on the idea that you can feel this for four years when it was really four months i think to the point that you just counsel was trying to make was that she never mentioned that they were detained at all well no they said why didn't you tell us she had been that they'd been detained for four years and that was what it has consistently throughout and the government was just wrong it was going for months afterwards and it seems to me that  undermines the credibility of the entire process in this case and that's a pretty fundamental error because if she had made an error like that she'd be strung up by now but when the government does make that kind of an error oh well it doesn't matter that but somebody might have said something about her being detained for four years but didn't think at the time that that was very important that they would have been detained for the it was four months after the statement they accused her of not mentioning which you know it's true that i don't understand how the government can come important what her cousin i have to whoever it was she who arranged to get her out of china how she did it all she cared about was her i had arranged for whether i paid a bribe or not was not a particularly significant to her i think the importance of it your honor is that she said that she had to pay a bribe in order to leave the country or she would have been arrested that gives it a much greater significan seems to me that it would be a rather significant portion of her of her asylum application because it seemed like a fairly dramatic flight from china that she couldn't just leave she couldn't just have her cousin help her to the airport or in some other way that her cousin or her aunt had to help her by hiring an agency to bride cause i know it's not like the united states and even in the united states it's gotten really hard to get just get on a plane that china is not like the united states i think that's something that as i see immigration judges do all the time they project what conditions are here and to wait there like a foreign country but that's not part of that claim for asylum i think the reason why they found that it was so probative to her credibility is that it doesn't hance her fear because it goes from her saying that her  tailing city then with her help we fled to the united states with a valid visa so the cousin or whoever it was made his ruling from i don't know and if you want to find out more about it then you agency relied on and that's a well founded fear of persecution here miss one had multiple paths to establish a well founded fear of persecution and the house most relevant is demonstrating that what she fears rises to the level of persecution practitioners feared arrest and had a prior history of arrest detention and abuse and threats and record evidence of widespread abuse of fallen gong practitioners including that we simply don't have severe consequences if she returned because she was the leader of the group it is unclear what those are or what she meant by that but severe consequences isn't enough if the government threatened you with trivial consequences would like to go arrest is sufficient to constitute persecution this was her burden it was her burden to connect the dots and she simply hasn't done so so on this alternate ground the government's position is that the petition should still be denied just a couple points but i'd like to address again the way this case fits squarely under law is i think it was evident this the petitioner would have had to have this plan that she would have testified on direct she would not have mentioned these details and then her plan was to hope that the trial attorney would elicit her information that's what the court and lie said and that simply makes no sense if she was going to enhance her claim she would have done this on direct examination through questions of our counsel she would not have the government attorney could have asked five questions and rested and then this information would have never came out this is why these emissions cannot support the severus credibility fine number two i respectfully disagree with the government that we did not cite any case law in respect to the future fear if the court just reads my group so she could face more severe consequences for being the leader and organizer i cited to two cases one is the ins versus cardoza that says ten percent chance of future return to china and this case states that an applicant may demonstrate a well founded fear of return to her home country through showing that she's been targeted for persecution and again if credible then we have arrested and detained for a lengthy time period and were still under surveillance and home arrest at the time of the hearing unable to work she is similarly situated so i would