firms thank you for the record we need to have some volume in your voice thank you very much for reminding me of that today the court simply must review the immigration judge's decision because the board of immigration appeals simply firms that decision and the board basically is taking as fact the findings of fact  and therefore what happened was the judge determining that there was no nexus decided that there was no reason to seek whether or not there was sufficient harm to equate persecution trial as a consequence of what happened to her family shield with the for prevented from having children i don't believe that's the strongest claim  believe that heard her strongest claims that two things number one the immigration judge found that her testimony was entirely credible and she testified should be arrested upon returning to  nothing in her testimony that describes why she would be arrested if she was with her that's correct charge but i would like to imply in the world would you want to spend your time here today talking about an allegedly stronger ground about the fact that if she were returned her allegation if she were returned to china she would be prevented from having children that is an issue and it is an issue she did state that would be true my question was the correct instilling the claim is my i don't believe that that is actually on the reason why is to believe that it's because she has the right procreation and she is stating that she desires to pursue that right and she will not be allowed to pursue that right and my apologies for veering away from the interests of the court but my legal error that i see by the court is that years nexus and the whole point was denied because there allegedly was not and if we believe that the excuse me the petitioners testimony what we did she was found credible right right then the judge cannot say that there is no nexus because the records clearance especially page fifty six and one night that she was targeted in the past specifically because she was a member of a family who well that's that's not the harm that i was talking about that i was talking about and i'm sorry i'm going the harm that i was talking about would be one the the not the right not the the inability to pursue one's rights procreation and that's the future and also the past farms that she suffered were clearly on account of her membership in a particular social isn't me because if she's right that if she were returned to china she would be odd in that magically precluded from starting her own family before those of her parents violation of chinese population control indicates that the china family pant timing policy is collectively in force against the entire family unit on account of that parents violations the government which is where the cert that ms then will stand on her own accord if she's returned to china and she's presently not married she presently has no children should be allowed to have one child if she returns and at that point if she makes selection to have a second then depend upon where she reside strike and the i j a accepted her credibility that's the evidence in the record what more do you need looking at i believe that's something it would be nicer if you had fifteen learn understand your argument thank you very much and thank you for anything you're going to tell us to think of the only thing that we you want to be really careful how you answer this question