that his twenty year old girlfriend was pregnant petitioner moved in with his girlfriend and the family decided to have a traditional wedding ceremony they couldn't legally marry because they weren't the legal age to marry the what the legal age is in china i do so for males twenty two and for females twenty thank you so therefore they did have a traditional wedding ceremony and the tissue nerves wife was two months pregnant when the six family planning officials came into their home rushed in and stated that somebody reported that there was a violation of the family planning laws and petitioners wife had to be taken to the hospital for the abortion petitioner did resist he tried to stop them but he was hit in the the to him amounted to persecution a lot of your brief a lot of your opening brief is occupied with a discussion of credibility in disagree that's off the table isn't it except i agree but i was told by my office that has addressed this issue just in case so i did i did so that we did know that in our brief but i agree that the key issue here is whether there's past percey he shouldn't say about jang that's that's something that's important right that it was even fairly openly for several months in the same province in the same promise of the promise is huge and they didn't move the weight into the and home so they were they did evidently hide and in this case hiding meaning they just  seventeen year old kid and of course he in the eyes of the community they were married and his wife was two months pregnant and being violently taken away to have a very intrusive procedure done that he doesn't want done he is being slapped kicked hit repeatedly to a point where his nose is bleeding and that in itself is psychological trauma and it is physical abuse as well so draw a distinction or should we draw distinction between being punished for violating a policy and resisting policy persecution is based upon his political position in resisting a policy if i smoke marijuana and get arrested and punished for that that's not necessarily resisting the policy of making marijuana legal distinction between resisting a policy and getting roughed up a bit for violating the policy address the course of population control policy in section one and one forty two for the what defines a refugee so fortunately our laws do recognize that a forced abortion is and if you do resist and if there is p based on that that amounts to to persecution so it's true he did well in technically they are violating the laws but in this country we do recognise that as as persecution if you're done if it's forced it's a good if they take you against your will and  say that you have to abort the child and you resist what the law is that if you're the spouse of someone who's had this forced abortion that is not enough to get you a finding there has to be something in addition to that it's a factor that can be considered when you're spouses but not something that and and even in jan there's actually no physical stopping but because they went to get that the marriage license and because they were living together with the ninth circuit to find that there is resistance even there is less resistance in genk so i think in this case the issue s where it ruled that for the physically persecuted spouse remains in china there were rarely be affirmative evidence that the spell seeking refugee status rhesus to the course of prospal a see what to do behind a nothing happens to her and maybe there's no future fear of future persecution meaning your right is there she's not pretty no one's coming to arrest her and now you're in the united states and there's really no fear of anything happening to you if you bumped and has to pay a fine that constitutes past persecution i think that if we take that in this case we take a hotel it in a circumstance the fact that he was just a teenager the fact that he was punched kicked beaten held down knows the fact that it took him a month to recover from his injuries i think in this case yes i do find past persecution of course if you ask me if i witnessed myself being taken away to have something intrusive done to  his body i'm going to say that i was persecuted so i mean it's true it depends on how severe the beatings the beating is but and you don't necessarily need to even show that he was necessarily beat  one when he was beaten punched kicked and held down so what do you make of our standard of review we have to say that the a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the opposite do you think this case meets the standard i do in case i do i do find that the case law is in our favor i do i do feel that even though it's true it's not that he he was severely he was the beating wasn't to the point where he needed to be hospitalized but i do believe like that if you take a totality the circumstance he was seventeen years old him because witnessing your wife being taken away that to be violated is if you ask me enough but it's true in this case there was also physical abuse following facts on august twentieth two thousand and seven his wife was forcibly taken to get an order of orsha him he thought would he be taking while his wife was taken for an abortion he was held in his home for one hour so how do these facts differ from jan in any significant way well during during the persecutory event where jenn's wife was being taken first to get a medical examination and then for an abortion jen was actually detained in a in by the police in their their office for twenty four hours be tamed while the abortion was carried out in the petitioner here was also detained while the boy she was carrying out except that one was at the time in the home and the other one was in a jail facility for one day rather than four for one hour also another difference between this case and jang has to do jang was was expelled from school then jang apply for my marriage license and was detained for twenty four hours while his wife was taken for an abortion then when jang and his wife tried to get married anyway in a traditional ceremony on that morning ten chinese family planning fishel came to their house in order to break up the ceremony and arrest the couple jang had to flee out the back of his mother's door in order to avoid arrest and his ceremony was not held at that point jang and his wife both hid in separate locations and no longer lived together jang left his family and friends and job and moved ten hours  away to a friend's house in order to in order to hide let me ask you this b b i a decision talks about the fact that there's no per se assumption that a spouse of someone who was forced to undergo an abortion is intitled to a finding of past persecution but in concluding that there was no past persecution in this case the analysis really didn't  rely on our discussions and jang in the recent cases that talk about what constitutes of the resistance specifically us to china's population control policy why should we remain in that to the b i a to give them the benefit of jing and take another look at this case django gen was it came out before the board's decision in this case and undoubtedly it would make all of our jobs easier if they had cited to jangan indeed it was the leading case from this court and so perhaps it would be reasonable to think that they would have cited to jang however they did cite to j s which jag was implementing in this court and also we have this person we have the presumption of regularity that the board knows what the law is and is implementing the law now if if there are now assists with conflicting with jen then i would certainly agree that this case would need to be remanded in order for them to address jen and  show how this case comport with jen however this case does comport with janke and we have the assumption that they knew about that so while they did not specifically cite to it they were required to cite junk in particular the you know what sort of mistreatment sensually physical mistreatment rises to the level of past persecution but specifically in the context of forced abortion cases for the spouse or in in pieces first did he have other resistance then did he did the harm rise to the level of persecution and so they separated those two things there was two concepts out and they they seem to argue and he did resist to the policy so then they were looking at just did the harm right the level of persecution and now while they didn't cite cite genk and they did cite other cases that didn't involve forced abortion didn't actually change the idea of what constitutes harm rising to the level of persecution when jang makes it rising to the level holding its si once again went to this is the totality of the circumstances these are all of the events that happened to this petitioner so when the boy looked at me as case it also cited cases that  not look specifically at cases involving spouses who had had past abortions but i did look at cases that involve the totality of the circumstances and whether or not the the harm that that's  is much more nuanced when you're talking about resisting the policy and there's been a considerable amount of ninth circuit law that's emerged since the two thousand decision and decision in jan which is not discussed by the board or by either of you in your written when when resistance to an event constitutes resistance to a policy it doesn't surprise me that a spouse or partner is going to get beaten up when his wife or her poor lover is dragged away for a a has already assumed there was resistance and then moved to whether or not the harm that occurred on account of that resistance roll to the level of persecution well in order to do to try to address both of your question if this court finds that the evidence here compels the conclusion that that this person experienced harm rising to level past persecution at that point the court could remarried and at that point the board could then look at any of the the issues in order to either state that this person has met the standard for asylum or he has not and among the issues that the board could address in a rematch they could since they only assume doc you wonder what the staff at this point that this  person had had persisted they could make a finding on on other resistance or alternatively they could make a finding on whether or not the presumption of future persecution has been rebutted or arguably they couldn't make once we see that the evidence is compelling the conclusion that they weighed the evidence before them incorrectly and that no reasonable it to cater what of what i found with their funding or substantial evidence to not support that finding then at that point this court could could dream and but otherwise they this court would not be able to do so thank you  fact that he he was kicked and punched his nose was bleeding so those are the kinds of considerations that go into determining whether or not the physical harm role for the level of persecution which is not it has to rise to a level of seriousness right because my argument is that that analysis is flawed only because it's not taking into consideration other important facts these facts coupled with the fact that his wife did it circumstance i do believe that the now if this is lacking your argument is if i understand it correctly that in this case the harm is just as severe if not more so than the facts of jang and if