most significant issue and most interesting issue from this case from my perspective is two reasons we have first of all we have a credibility determination but made by the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals that relief was also interesting about this case is that the board immigration appeals made an alternative finding that the even if he could have shown a sound as in tell that  he did not he was not entitle he had changed circumstances because the transaction to which the eminent domain occurred was over now if courts are going to go along and do that and say that well the transit the event is over then every single asylum claim and every claim for asylum and made on us soil you can make that argument there and must the government prove to show fundamental change in the country circumstances you know i don't see a lot of cases but it's usually something like a change of regime that type of thing and that's my impression i get but y this case you know what happened here the government asserts there was why do you say there wasn't why how do you think it should i would say there wasn't because of the fact that if we're going to look at is tony as credible he's saying that they've been periodic lee going back to my wife and asking where is your where your husband has been in the united states and when he comes back tell us so if he's credible on that testimony then i don't think that's a change circumstance i don't think you can and to the point where i don't think you can say that you're persecution is over so the circumstances changed and the second point they also raise is he was he has a passport he has a passport so obviously the government's not looking for him because he could obtain a passport and they actually slate to a case that was my very first or organ when i was looking through it's the palm hotel case that was done before the panel in this very court room back four years ago that page thirty one and of the government's brief and that's one case where in that particular case they said the issuance of the chinese passport shows that the essentially that the government must not have them looking for this person that was in the one nine hundred eighty five i can understand back in one nine hundred eighty five in china the issuance of a passport was probably pretty significant but i also there's also several cases in the circuit that say that the issuance of a passport is essentially invariant because a government that wants a troublemaker out of the country could very well issue that on the passport i'm going to i've found some claim supports the claim that there's a change circumstance and because the country condition report mentions that there's a lot of public protests going on china on this and then domain issue but the b i says well the state farmers country condition report it doesn't say that these leaders yet it looks like they get persecuted but it doesn't mention anything about prosecutor that they're being persecuted they some of the leaders are getting prosecuted but it doesn't seem like they're getting persecuted as it doesn't say that they are in the country conditions reports now a country conditional report from the state bar just provides an overall guideline and just general view of china or whatever country that the department of state has the report on i'm saying that just because it fails to mention that people in these public protest scenarios for the eminent domain that's my base is to say that to rebut what assuming that he established past persecution gets a presumption of future persecution b i went in and did the unusual thing to say well even if you had that was their political opinion no no no he he goes and complains to beijing he goes over their heads he's from changing he goes to beijing suddenly when he tells the beijing government hey something not fair is going on in tinging group he was the tang for seven days he's released and then he tries to go back to the local government changing government to make a complaint he says he leaves and then he's a costed by a van with people he  identify and that's that's afterwards this is though because he wanted more money for the property or he wanted more money but the imputed political pinion is the government are he are they suspecting him of being a whistleblower i mean we also i point out we have some of the testimony that he when he went to beijing on what he we don't know what he said exactly but you see mafiosa topknot government he's not sure that the government is still speaking to his wife because his wife was actually arrested along with him yet she is not in harm's since he's departed china meaning that their government is very unconcerned with the families  over at this economic dispute but again the economic dispute over right now it is your honor he it's telling also telling that he was promised fifty thousand won and he was paid fifty thousand  he was able to obtain a passport at the same time that he claims that he was under such strict surveillance that he couldn't even leave his own miss a power he was able to travel all the way to beijing was given a passport departed in february two thousand and four for a few weeks in february of two thousand and four a few weeks later he then leaves china he comes back to china at the end of february two thousand and four stays for a number of weeks with his with his mother presumably openly and then in march of two thousand  he when he testified in two thousand and nine that his immigration proceedings he informed the immigration judge that the authorities were still searching for him five years later we're still checking in with the wife about him five years later even though he had been openly entering the party in china in two thousand who singer i don't recall specifically but i do know that the immigration judge is allowed to make such a finding on its own in the first instance so what is required to show fundamental or short change  founded by showing the cheek by showing conditions have changed specifically to his case they have provided the presumption that he has a well founded fear  according to the country report it's not a democracy fearful of being armed he departed the country he was had found a safe haven but he decided to go back under his own name and i guess that's what i'm trying to figure out is it any more required than that or you think that's will give you a minute to judge and i can answer the question china is a dictatorship authoritarian it's not a dictatorship in the sense that there's a military general in charge we just look at this case mr gone got the taint they beat a confession out of him the confession that he signed and subscribed to said that he essentially to stop the civil order and because of that can criminal confession that he presented to the i j a to show that this is what they beat out of me would be a and i j now took that and said oh well you must be a legitimate criminal the due process he had was a beating from the police he didn't get any due process i think that's a characteristic of a dictatorship and he's now getting they're now saying that you were your persecution is over and you're a criminal you admitted to it so when you go back to china you get what you deserve went back to the immigration judge i doubt but you must he could have been courageous his mother was very sick and he came back out there's a lot of speculative aspects to say that while she because he can freely travel government by challenging the amount that they gave him for his house in order to tear it down for the olympics are you saying that his actions then resulted in these people some perhaps affiliated with the government some of  somewhat maybe perhaps affiliated with the government and that he it was so bad that he had to leave and that he fears going back because he could get persecuted when he gets back government is saying well know there's been a change as required under the reg it we just accept everything else but just looking at this one issue on the passport and that he was issued a passport he was able to complete and then in fact he went back and despite that they were looking for him or purportedly by his wife were looking for him he was able to go back and then return and to me that seems like the critical point where we're at and passport the first time he's taken a risk he can leave to judge a news point we're selling china is very efficient and maybe they do this all the time so they do the so much that they're not reporting every single thing this may just be petty it was a little supposed to be fifteen days but he got out after seven he was beaten pretty severely they smashed his head with their feet while being held on the way home from you know he was he was detained he was held he was beaten by authorities there's no doubt about that the the mafioso types was after he was released he still want back and said to the changing local government said this is unfair when he left again from that when he was released that appeal he got a cost  on the road that's a totally separate incident but he was beaten