prancing i'm pretty much sure the court is familiar with the facts which is very simple and so if you give i think you're correct and we are let me ask you what i think is the hard question in this case circuit has to publish opinions and i will mispronounced names what is g u and the other is g u o dealing with similar situations tell me how tell me how you use those precedents in this case and how you think they help you so basically the local court and the b i deny the relief based on three point this is a case where the p i a s or the i j found your client not credible but what what they said was i think maybe i'm wrong and correct me if i'm wrong but this set of facts even if believed do not amount to the kind of persecution it gives rise to a silent degree but i disagree you think that they found your client do you think they said if these facts were true they would constitute persecution let's look at the pa from the main employment which is support my house church was detained i think for a substantial period of time and subjected to i think more difficult physical abuse than your client was and our court said that didn't amount to persecution under the statute i tend to agree with you in colloquial terms all those things are persecution but i'm having difficulty dealing with that case is that it either it is inconsistent with the court decision or  her i believe a coworker that by the time the police was looking for her tried to arrest her she's already in the u s and apply for asylum and that this court decide ok you know in those cases that the past persecution almost night this because that the petition and never met face to face to the police never be physically detained arrest or abused or crap that case the petitioner was burned with cigarettes wow beaten by police it is the police burned his hands and feet with cigarettes and but what i what i'm trying to get you to respond to is we have some cases that say even being detained is not enough and we have some cases that say being detained last pretty bad physical abuse is just trying to figure out where your case falls on  ten percent of the risk objectively subjective like he or she were to be persecuted back to the home country this court or the lower court can't give the relieve pressure now you're talking about the come to this so i'm in this country i thought your focus was on the persecution of christians i think you know the subject of the objective that there's a difference a lot of people they're getting so rich in china and they're being so powerful  here and do some sightseeing and go back they think you know this country even and not as rich as lectures as their own home but you know the clients like most of the people like my clients they're small people they w the past persecution the past experience of arrests the detained detention and the discharge from employment shows there's a way beyond ten percent of the risk subjectively or objectively for her to go back and encounter persecution again did you want to save some time  what we have in go i believe where this court upheld the board's finding of no persecution is more fear serious physical abuse than what was suffered here what about job loss so i agree that you have job loss here and that is also consistent with what happening how but i think that this is more on the spectrum of do as i will explain because and you you have more extreme physical harm you have a longer he's been with a rod and at least ten times there's marks on the body there's pain here by her own testimony the harm is not severe what do we do and i'm sympathetic to counsels argument that our case is less than consistent  better case for him and i think in footnote three of our brief i get some what probably are diametrically opposed opinions into manning and the varney and so i think what we do is we apply the deferential stamper view to the agenc decision and look at what the agency did which was reasonable in looking at doing gavin trying to figure out where that line is and i think that they did a reasonable job in trying to figure out where that line is on the job losses so i take it you agree that of support his position i do your honor but i think it's i think that case is an aberration when you look at the rest of the case law on it i don't think it's consistent with with get worked out because you have syria i mean you have like ten ten abuse with ten hits with the rod you have a three day detention you have him reporting to the police and that's when the court agree with the board that that wasn't persecution i don't know how you square that was our and i think under the deferential scam review the agency if we are reaching different conclusions in similar cases is it something we should be concerned about i mean i think if those two cases present themselves that would be an interesting thought process but as you said i mean this is a difficult area and i think the best we can do is try to look at you and go and see which will fall so i don't want falls on i think it falls on you like look we have job loss which you don't have and you but it's also here we have less severe physical harm we have a shorter and interrogation in gal if you were familiar with the facts of that  case i mean you have some very significant physical abuse in that case you know you have a beating well that both you think both incidents are are remembered in the court says both incidents independently would constitute persecution so and beat him with a rod and i think that either of those are distinguishable from this case and so i think that that's just much more severe physical abuse than what you're talking about here and on the job loss point right we have  have being fired from a job here which we don't have and you write although maybe that's balanced out by the fact that there's less physical harm but if you look at the facts of how do we review job loss the standard is whether economic deprivation is so severe that it's a threat to wife or freedom can we tell that from this record we cannot and i think that because this petitioners burden to prove that she's a refugee she fails on that point in gal is actually the point that he went out and tried to find a job multiple times after his firing was in the unable to and i think that's why it approaches this like affecting life or freedom in this case the problem is right after she was fired her parents hired a broker what we would call a smuggler to bring her to united states so we actually just don't know so she had  opportunity to try to find other imports she just didn't present any facts that that deprivation was asked of her also i mean her parents are apparently have some means of being able to pay that high bond and then also being able right after that to afford the smuggler  opinions mean but i mean i think that i think the core is i think this court is mostly consistent i think the bulk of the case law supports our position i think again we have sour up there and i want to be upfront with you about that but i think that there's case law that prevents that and that it's not consistent with the bowl the body of the scores published press and i do want to move on with yet further questions about past persecution talk about future persecution so i think that the problem with the future persecution claim is twofold first  putting subjective fear aside to have an objective fear of future persecution you have to show the specific and direct evidence and i think the problem with the reports provided is they actually don't show that specific evidence for someone similarly situated to the petition for true reasons one it focuses on the persecution of church leaders of illicit church leaders and there's actually things in there about how they want to take members like the petitioner and kind of move them in to the government approved process in churches and i guess this leads me to my second point is this case is a little bit odd because most of these cases the petitioners are unable or unwilling to attend those government sanctioned churches whether it be because of religious belief or what have you but here there's actually no allegation in the record that she is unwilling or unable to attend the government sanctioned process church and so if you look at the evidence that she submitted those churches are on the rise religious freedom relations of them are on the rise and you know from that i just don't think that a well founded fear can be established especially if you're applying a deferential standard of review in looking at it same's went out you know his or her own way to find not existing facts you go on to deny this case he or she didn't even make a decision whether or not the testimony of the crucial because well but you can't but you my difficulty and i said this before is that the said we're going to treat your clients testimony as credible so there's no reason to send it back to i j to find it is credible to be i a says she's telling the truth but these facts don't add up in our view to persecution so it's that legal issue not not has to be good it up that i think you ought to be focusing i totally agree with the court and i have to admit you know i read many cases and found there's inconsistency and so i think it's up to the court in the future to make more decisions to square those inconsistency but you know when i say what but with the existing case law i think this court should grant my kinds of time of application particularly if we consider you  believe they're small then ten percent of the risk that she wore be persecuted when she went goes back to china i think we should grant this application said thank you counsel i thank both counsel for the arguments in