case is whether the harm that petitioner suffered was on account of a protected ground i think it's catered to note that the immigration judge did not make an adverse credibility determination in this case i believe in our position is that the harm that the petitioner suffered was on account of a protected ground namely religious persecution and also a political opinion and the reasons for that are essentially mr go was arrested at a christian gathering more specifically at a christian funeral and they only arrested r because i believe that the police were adamant in trying to focus on a religious gathering this was corroborated by the statement of the squad leader that later was remorseful and gave a statement indicating that they were going to a religious gathering for that and that it was essentially a ploy to enforce the cremation ordinance which had only been in effect a couple of months perhaps less do we have any evidence that tells us one way or the other whether the police employed just sort of force with respect to non christians in forcing this and we know that some of the police are fortune's all refer to the illegal gathering crowd of them illegal burial but illegal gathering my question is as to barrage romeril the case decided after t a finished does that help you and if so how corroborating documents in terms of the police bureau dishes in state and the firing notice the statement by the police squad indicated that l the standard is a reason is to say the motivation with respect to withholding ruvell need not be so strong all you need is that the political racial or religious reasons motivating the authorities was the reason it need not be a central reason yes you need a case that way yes yes in other words asylum is harder to get that's correct your honor but i believe in this particular case that the burden has been met  because essentially in these illegal gathering cases that is what how it's categorized as an illegal gathering as a disturbance of the social order and that's what happened in this particular case all of the evidence fine based on principle is what he said that's correct that he did file a formal protest to that and so what's the state of our law if someone doesn't comply with a fine or an order by police or the government and will be arrested or thinks he may be arrested when he returns i guess the first question is is there evidence that he he will be arrested for failure to pay the fine i believe that's part of the reason that he would be arrested if he were to return was there evidence that he would be arrested i don't i don't believe in terms of documentary evidence there was testimony from the respondent that he had that fear there was there was actually the his mother's letter and also the letter from the squad leader that indicated that the police had plans rearrest him and that was the reason that he made the arrangements to leave the country as soon as possible and was at his failure to pay the fine or for some other reason i believe it was correlated to his involvement in christianity because he one of the conditions was that he was not to continue attendee in christian gatherings in the future he was forbidden from that he testified to that and i think that his testimony is there any documentary evidence to that effect the i believe that was essentially that evidence was his testimony that he was not to participate in under god is actually i remember now in the letter from the police bureau the statement by the former  characterization in the book ended in the documents that we do have from the authorities characterizing it as an illegal dog as an illegal gathering yes and i think it's important that they list illegal gathering as the first charge so wh the morning your honour's may please the court you know use the for the government the government contends that the court should deny the petition for view because substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that this or did not establish that the harm he endured in china was on account of protect ground as it related to his claim for asylum in withholding of removal let me just start out with the question i asked the other side is the standard for withholding a removal that the religious motivation simply be a reason as distinct from a central reason yes roger that per our twenty eight j letter i would referring to that that in those instances the court they didn't see in this case indicated that the only reason the individual was targeted was based on his violation a central reason or a reason that whether that that kind of distinction in terms of burden of proof in situations where the agency found that there was no nexus to harm to protect the ground it also here similarly there there was no nexus t religious persecution was the central reason for withholding it only has to be the reason correct yes your honor i j in the be you did not have that case in front of them no they did not and they this case the agency specifically said that petitioners claim protected grounds was not the reason there with it was not the basis for the mistreatment he endured but that they were applying as i understand it the essential reason as the burden of proof that had to be a gathering itself was illegal now it may be that they arrested only those people at the illegal gathering who were strenuously resisting they are seizing the body but it looks as though they were there because it was an illegal gathering respect to that your honor we have the term illegal gathering reference here to what occurred this burial service this burial service i believe that it if you're looking at the record is the illegal gathering here the fact that there was a the funeral service to any time where they actually referenced individuals christian faith i understand we use we've seen the term illegal gathering frequently in a many cases regarding china and christian issues however here we have a gathering in which there was an illegal act was about to be performed that being in contravention to the policy of carrying the body as opposed to actually abiding by the by the government the government's laws testified he had to guarantee that he would not participate in any of the faithful gatherings that's not reflected actually in the guarantee for the the eye to make an answer is credibility determination what do we do with his testimony where he says he would participate he had a guarantee participate in any of the faithful gatherings i would see that there might be evidence to support his claim but i don't think that's sufficient evidence to compel reversal of the agency's finding i think we have that but we have  was was invoked by the by the government officials neither during the press during his interrogation with his christian faith raised by the government officials so we have that piece of evidence that you reference however if the record as a whole i don't believe we makes me then as how can we sustain the be grounded and reach when we have an intervening case that says that a reason is fishing for withholding there's evidence in in here from which i think the b and the i could have found that there was a reason i'm not inclined to find it myself but i think the i j a should be given an opportunity to apply the standard well i believe your honor in that instance the court in that agency here could have said yes that you were targeted for the reason why you were talking about your christian faith but it was not essential reason then that would absolutely be where the agreement but here the agency said look at the record and said that your christian faith or your puter put computer political opinion based on the record we have was not why you were targeted not at all that's that was you so it doesn't mean that you're sliding off my question i'm asking you do we have any indication that the be applied the standard of a reason in determining that there was insufficient connection find out he was eligible for asylum that was the petition was eligible for asylum and since the standard for withholding is higher it's more probable than not therefore also not eligible for withholding so would for withholding a little bit based on this court's current law that may require the agency to do it and additional step of analysis regarding a reason in withholding but i would say in this instance i think it just bringing back to think the twenty eight days later were in this in of persecution and the protecting ground how do we know that there was no nexus at all because the charging documents keep talking about illegal gathering without specifying the nature of the illegality we also just joined his government frowns question gatherings whether or not there for the purpose of burial or not we also know because he's not been found incredible that he was told he shouldn't go to christian gatherings anymore that suggests there's enough ground for the find that there's grounds for withholding and we are repeatedly told we're not supposed to make those decisions in the first instance you know what by the government if that determination if it fits within a reason should be made by the agency in the first doesn't meet the central reason center here the court simply said the agency simply said you didn't show the record does not show that you were targeted because of it on account of your project to ground so it satisfies that distinction and  you've got two minutes thank you and i don't have a specific time to the but it's very clear though that  the reason that mr goh was targeted in this particular case is because of his participation in the illegal gathering it's an all of the documentary evidence of this question is whether it was an illegal gathering because it was a group of people purporting to bury a body or was illegal gathering because they were celebrating the christian i believe there's not the evidence so it was illegal gathering and the only government effort was against the people who