thousand and twelve decision denying the sound relief application and the two thousand and thirteen decision denying petitioners a request to reopen his case based on the ineffective assistance of counsel of two prior  and this is again mentioned in two thousand and twelve they don't address the issue of credibility and essentially what they're saying is what was their harm and was a resistance and we do see that there was harm there was resistance  saying that there was no you know the petitioner failed to show prejudice and what is prejudice on the motion to reopen yes your honor and on the motion to reopen you know they barely touch on this struggling with the showing of prejudice what sort of overt resistance did he demonstrate to the population control policies isn't it and put it differently why isn't this a case of hile in china he was the person planning in hiding his wife from the family planning officials he was a person that planned for his wife to go to a different city to see a private doctor so  that that doctor could see that oh you know this kind of cultural exam that she was the wife was subject to was done by private doctor not by the government officials doctors and others in another situation so so that's tension attempt  family planning officials were saying that he took steps to plan to to resist to he made the plans so that his wife could resist the what was that at any point made known to officials and and yes and this in part of the other part is that with having a second child and having a fine i mean that that's evidence of this this resistance to the family planning policies in of itself and we're asking this court take a look at everything in can eat everything in total your counsel one of which is you had to show that that he was prejudice yes or no which you've been discussing with judge when correct right now my understanding is in this context of the question is yes that's and that's all that we need to show your all right that's your point as i understand it this is the way try to think about the case is the evidence you submitted in connection with the motion was intended to show there's more to this case then the original lawyer really saw yes your honor and that's exactly what was presented as part of the motion to reopen the motion open you're given ninety days there's no that's not exactly a lot of time to present everything that the has to meet that the idea that the b a a didn't even address i'm not quite sure what to do with it they didn't address diligence as you know there for an equitable in only in the after show diligence maybe i didn't touch they didn't and it was a touch ineffectiveness yes  have just gone to the immigration court in the first place because it's clear on it's it's clear based on just the first attorneys conduct that there was there was a plethora facts that were not marshaled from from the alien and plausible claim that it was prejudice what do they show where one is that the first attorney failed to marshal these facts from him and they're like you as you said there's just more to this than what was presented in the motion to reopen part of it was that he the the i g s determination with regards to the erroneous their only as translation the petitioners explanation as to why there was the floating population had a different date from what was being stated during during the trial so all these were if he was given a chance you know it would have been plausible for him to have prevailed and presented  trial court there was fear of future persecution of the decorations he stated that his own father suffered and was subject to medical operations and because more importantly position awaits any challenge to the other resistance finding in connection with that poor decision and furthermore even if other resistance the waiver were overlooked the evidence does not compel the conclusion of other assistance with respect to the first court decision  its motion to reopen and because the government's position that he cannot prevail even under his more fulsome claim he necessarily cannot show in the first petition for review that the evidence compels a conclusion in his favor so if there are no further questions on the average credibility finding  this connection context is very important how does the applicant respond to the government's demands to comply with the family planning policy and how does the government respond to the aliens reactions to those demands and in this case we don't have that  reasonable basis or at least a compelling basis for finding other resistance petitioner claim that he violated the family planning policy in one thousand nine hundred nine because he married too early and then that he violated the family planning policy again because  hundred he had an unauthorized child and in one thousand nine hundred one he was fined fifteen thousand aren't well it's important to look what happened after the after the imposition of the fines the petitioner states in his declaration that he assured the family planning officials that he would comply with the family planning policy and staved off paying the fifteen thousand are in the fine he also said that his father gave gifts to family planning officials in order to delay payment of the fifteen thousand army fine in addition the government accommodated the petitioner in this case by  only allowing the marriage to be registered but also allowing the unauthorized child to be listed as authorised as evidence in the floating populations are difficult so although there was an early marriage early birth both of those elements  to remove the i u d and goes to a quarry where he fathers of a second child he returns to his town and at that point the government finds out or discovers about the violation of family planning policy the government finds him sixty five working with the family planning policy he doesn't resist in the sense of physical resistance there's no evidence of that and to the contrary what he does is he pays the fine essentially signaling to the government that he's willing to cooperate so we pay sixty five hundred  sixty five hundred are in the fine in one thousand nine hundred three and then thereafter nothing happens nothing happens even at the point of when he decides to come to the united states in two thousand and six he says that well he found out that the family planning officials were targeting his father not him but his father and harassing him for payment of the fine and so he came to the united states so what we really have here is a series of violations of the family planning policy and the chinese government's accommodations to petition violations and the petitioners compliance with those with those conditions so the evidence in this case just would not compel a conclusion of other resistance and to your honest question about what is the declaration that he assured the family planning officials that he would comply with the family planning policy it's under spirted that he paid the sixty five hundred rb fine it's undisputed that he was fined fifteen thousand armies in one thousand and one and has never been targeted harassed detained or subject to any kind of harm for payment of that fine he hasn't testified to any owners economic deprivation that would rise to the level of persecution ensure he just has an alleged a claim of other resistance and so either plausible grounds or pr were to disagree with the government it would be remained for the board to decide the case as appropriate the board is not required to make a finding on every issue it only has to make a finding on an issue that's dispositive of the case and here petitioner has not alleged sufficient other grounds that it deems appropriate so in sum the board's first decision to june two thousand and twelve decision should be denied because substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility in that in that case furthermore petitioner waves the other resistance pronk which is based on a more fair and less developed claim of other resistance in any case in fact it should be separate your honor the adverse credibility finding dispositive of the june two thousand and twelve decision and that petition could be denied just on that your honor by addressing other resistance in the motion to reopen however that would dispose of both cases because in his first claim he had a less developed in the first court decision he had a less developed claim of other resistance and in his motion to reopen his failure to show prejudice and that goes right to other resistance your honor and just to clarify some of the salient points as to the difference between the first petition and the second petition in the first petition the immigration judge was under the impression that the id was not even inserted in the in the wife there's no claim of the i u d being removed there's no claim of support of the yes as far as evidence that was not submitted but again the board's decision in the june two thousand about it or that the officials would find out about it from the chinese government's perspective he was actually following the law he was appearing for god or  impossible for the government to persecute somebody on account of that other resistance so yes the resistance must be overt as was the as was described in this case the first yes but there is no   contrary to the government's position that there was no harm on the part of the petitioner was that you know there was severe economic deprivation in this case he was fined fifteen thousand r and  for these farmers were being they're being deprived of the use of this cow and for for for if you take a look at it in terms of how much these people make this rise to the level of severe economic  deprivation and i believe the government completely over looks the the amount of this fifteen thousand r and b going to the government's argument that even if the we take a look at the motion reopen and we we are able to show that the petition was prejudiced by that effective system so consul and whether or not it rises to the level  court is that that is the whole point of the motion to reopen basically an ineffective assistance of counsel is that he be given the opportunity to go back to court and more fully present his case thank you counsel appreciate your arguments