persecution on account of an enumerator enumerated ground but rather was i have a judgment prosecution for insulting the dignity of the president of has expand and participating in a political opposition rally second to square with legal authority and the board second finding is impossible to square with the record i'm going to work in reverse order and begin with the record action of presented testimony and evidence demonstrating that university officials  his university and pay in the security officers work hand in hand to protect and ultranationalist ideology and kazakstan and to silence opposition to the president's dictatorial regime when acted off and four other minority students at his university challenge to that nationalist ideology and attempted to form a student group aimed at protecting minority student rights the university silence them prohibited their group and turned them over to kazakstan security police the cassocks kazakstan security officers explicitly stated that they were punishing action on earth because of his political activities and they used ethnic slurs while they were beating him during his detentions that evidence alone is sufficient to compel the conclusion that action off was persecuted on account of an enumerated grounds the officers called him a stubborn opposition dog and a traitor w beating him officers and that's that the administrative record pages eighty six eighty eight and two forty one the officers told action off that his quote actions not just his words were against the president the record pages eighteen to forty one again the office of officers warned to act enough to stop his political activities or leave the country if this was a legitimate criminal prosecution for insulting the dignity of the president why would the officers tell him to leave the country why would they not file criminal charges why would they be him while he was under detention this is clearly a case of persecution on account of political opinion not a legitimate from them should not live in their country that's at the administrative record pages eighty eight the board also ignored that evidence in fact it makes no mention of that evidence in its decision yet it compels the conclusion that he was persecuted in part mixed ethnicity have to german and half because back turning to the board's alternative finding that beatings and warnings to leave the country constitute a legitimate prosecution the board overlooked two critical legal points first when a government punishes an individual under a law aimed at extinguishing political expression that punishment constitutes persecution not prosecution the third circuit's decision perk of pick at thirty catholics down government use the law against insulting the dignity of the president and they use the law against unsanctioned political rallies to persecute political opponents of the government that's at the administrative record pages fifty four fifty five and fifty eight finally this court's authority and the authority of the third and six circuits teach that evidence of punishment out of proportion to law enforcement goals is circumstantial evidence that the punishment a pretext for persecution on account of an enumerated ground here acted up with never charged with any crime there was no legitimate investigative purpose behind the beatings or threats the k n p officers made plain their motive to punish action off on a basis of a protected grounds the only issue that this court really needs to decide today is what to do with this case is the court now in a position to find that credible or not well we're we're prepared to fully defend the credibility finding and if it goes back i am positive that we will defend that finding i mean your honor i admired your honor but we have to do chairman what we're going to do with the case and i can i don't think i have difficulty following your argument that the b i didn't discuss credibility i think in fact they specifically said they weren't going to discuss credibility they go ahead in assume credibility for the reserved the credibility issue then it should not be permitted the government should not be permitted to go back and have a second bite of the apple as to that issue in the board should not be permitted to resolve cases in this piecemeal fashion it results in  my client it results in judicially fish and sea and the board deemed the board deemed him credible for purposes of resolving this case what you're saying is that we should order the board never to do this they have to discuss both credibility  shouldn't allow them the option of doing it your case where we've actually directed what i sort of thought that was an administrative agency and they handle their own way of doing that's true your honor i think that the the rule that would be that would be appropriate as i said no i don't have a case that basically says this is how you do it but the rule of the direction the set of directions that you would give the board is essentially if you want to express a reserve the credibility issue say so if you don't say so we're going to  him credible now i admit they didn't reach the issue it's possible you know if there's a ring and i credibility we go back we resolve the credibility issue we may be back here in two years i mean of course of course it's an invasion but on the other here but it was not persecution on account of a political opinion imputed or actually have what happened was he got annoyed because believe it or not the president of the country didn't write back to him when he said i want to start an organization a what happened that led up to that point the difference is why happen why he if he said simply woke up in the middle of the night and said tomorrow morning i'm going down to northern cars are universally and i'm going to put up something like that i think we don't know what would have happened if you just put up posters that said we weren't entitled to do to register our organization and we're upset about it for through that said i don't think this guy was legitimately elected my understanding was it said that you weren't supposed to disparage the president and we don't know to what level disparagement can be carried from this case but we know he carried it too far and i don't think there is a question that and president reagan was explaining what the first amendment in the united states meant and he said it means that any citizen the united states could walk in the oval office and say president reagan is an idiot and then that's not a crime there's nothing wrong with that and now there are a lot of countries that have similar statutes there's even some that have been for slandering judges and they put them in jail something that perhaps they want to as well  from for disobeying laws even though we may not agree with the laws you have a strong argument the problem is is that i've had with the cases on page two forty six and we except this as credible answering that question well after they after they finished beating me up one of the investigators told told us that we with all the activities we make we basically either need to stop it or get out of the country but i got your argument pretty well up to that and maybe you could justify some of the other activities that took place as in either a prosecution or investigation towards a prosecution in light with your new but you know how do you justify if in fact it is a criminal prosecution that they're telling him you either stop doing what you're doing or get out of the country that sound to me like what people who they investigate is representing the government don't say you're a criminal leave it strikes me that what happened here if we have to accept this which we do beating him also they did not take the other students because they had no proof that they were involved in posting the posters so there is some kind of reality check they're not going around beating up everybody but when they say i mean people say it here it's an ugly thing to say but you know people who are saying well we want rights for allianz my office overlooks liberty plaza and there are demonstrations all the time and recently there's been one for immigrants rights and there it is my question my question is specifically is the prosecutor representing the prosecution the government has to stop this or will continue to be true unless you you're sort of i know and the thing is he wasn't stopping anything he wanted he had he all he wants is at and he wanted a group of ethnic minority students to have their rights but first of all all the other students  home and second of all i'm not sure what his personal problem was because it's a serious brother are obviously the same ethnic origin and they never i don't think you're getting to my question of which is let me go back to the word i jus apologize for that page two forty six of the answer it's at the top of the page and it's his response the response of what they told him after they had beat at all or get out of the country you know which attack you actually because it was a bank robbery if the bank robber was in there the police wouldn't say stop robbing banks or get out of the country they'd put him in jail if in fact he was being beaten for political reasons they might well say either stop your political activity or get out of the country but i don't think that i have just called the justifying that language that it's anything other than political activity if they're not going to prosecute him for what he did but they're going to let him leave the country that's the problem i have maybe you can justify that that's why i want you to respond as i guess that's why i wanted you to respond that's the problem i have with the case but few days after i was released the question and they said i got a call from investigators they told me that i needed to leave the country because they would not leave me alone if i find it at that then you get any threat he stayed in the country for three months after that and nothin assuming he's credible and they actually told him this which we have to believe because he's he's credible the point is they say you stop the activities or leave the country but the point is there was no indication that there were teeth to this threat i mean it does it's objective evidence that they consider this a political speech rather than a criminal activity because you have to be in that to win that you have to say well this is a legitimate law enforcement conversation as well as in physical control over the person the way we would expect them here we don't expect our police officers to say to persons they arrest who are violating the law who are not citizens or law