we're not asking this court to do we're not asking this court to redetermine the facts as a term by the b s a in fact a lot of the facts are largely in agreement between the parties in the board what we're asking is to require t honor and that's part of the problem and we would assert that in their application of the facts well to the outset and then the conclusion in conclusory fashion the board mentions prima fashion a well founded fear but in the actual paragraph that is the sole paragraph analyzing the facts with respect to the treatment of following on practitioners the board specifically said that mr wong has not demonstrated that he is likely to be persecuted which is a legal standard that was expressly rejected by the chance could suffice to establish a well founded fear certainly ten percent chance does not it does not mean likely to occur it's likely to occur but certainly there is what the supreme court said a reasonable person in the same circumstances would fear persecution and because in their analysis of the facts the board applied the wrong legal standard it is our position that at the very least a remand should be required for the board to apply the proper legal standard when analyzing the facts and that's all we have to do right to satisfy your client absolutely under that's all we're asking we don't expect this court to determine that mr wong conclusively met his burden of proof to establish reopening for the purposes of seeking asylum all we're asking this court is to require the agency in the for st instance to apply the proper legal standard it's important to note as i said because of the beginning the board mentions the proper legal standard in its conclusion they mention the proper legal standard sensually this court is left to guess what the agency what legal standard the agency was applying because in their analysis of the facts they then applied the wrong legal standard and this court obviously is an appellate review body not one not a st instance and that's why we don't ask th to review those facts we're just asking the agency to do so with respect to the the facts determined by the board the board didn't apply those facts to the appropriate legal variety of measures against the following good hearings ranging from harassment or detention to more serious forms of punishment but it leaves out what it thinks those cyr more serious forms of punishment would be but it later goes on to state that chinese citizens who practice foll gong and we're not talking about leaders there are knowledge and leaders they say the most serious forms of treatment but the they say that regular practitioners who participate in foreign going at tiffany's in the united states which is horn may be detained or subject to reeducation upon their return to china and the b s a continue and elaborate on why this news treatment would not amount to persecution correct and that the failure to analyze these facts and analyze the record as a whole is the nd area that we highlight in there are briefs and we would just rather err on the court's attention to the most recent congressional report u s government issued report which contains members of the department of state which the board  matter of each l h that is the best evidence of country conditions says that speaking of how average chinese citizens are treated in these great reeducation camps which the board concedes is a possibility authorities took measures to transform detainees subjecting them to sleep deprivation food deprivation forced feedings beatings electric shock and abuse sexual abuse and other cruel treatment that's going to page three hundred and twelve dollars of the record the congressional report goes on it says that authorities in these reader education camps regularly torture them with electric protons handcuff them in painful positions for long periods of time and lock them in tiny punishment cells among other forms of mistreatment that's page two hundred and thirty eight of the wreck your attention after fifteen years twenty years that that could be suggested however it wasn't suggested below it wasn't really suggested by the department it wasn't found by the  fact it was conceded that he is a member of following he presented voluminous documentation of his participation in regular participation in following on the activities and following organizations so his sincere subjective if there were factual concerns that were presented in the record in the government sought to introduce it i'm sure that there would be procedural mechanisms to for the agency to resolve that but certainly that issue is not before this court unless thank you may it please the court my name is brook mower for the u s attorney general petitioners counsel correct there is really only one technical issue before here and for the government it's whether the petitioner demonstrated a prima facia eligibility for relief that he sought in disagreement with petitioners suggestion that the board applied an improper standard we've noted that well the boars reasoning may have been in artful if you look at both the current decision and the prior one that was remained where they discussed the prima facia eligibility they both used the same standards the same cases and right now we're arguing over two words and you see that they didn't stray from how they looked at the record in its entirety and evaluated i had family members and others that were actually taken up and and subjected to forms of persecution as they fled and escaped and that is not the case in the situation here the b i did note not sound like persecution to you well that i mean as as it is i mean may is on the level of how how many get picked up and how and how they are actually treated it still doesn't become like  a evidence and supporting their for their prima facia determination he hasn't presented any evidence that he knows of anyone that was done or anybody in his family or anybody that he's practiced with as he started practicing here so there's a different look ability i believe like as far as like him practicing here in the united states versus developing it and being like looked at and having the government have an interest in him he would be returning at home with no idea that he's even practicing and he would have to be found and then the whole string of up there if he continued to practice he would become a target of the chinese government and then again we would be following down a chain of suppositions is like when we got there if you continue to practice if somebody found him who says he would continue  change his change of self induced change of circumstances could avert any type of issues with being able to be able to apply repeatedly and tell i may not disagree with you on anything that you've said was more but  it seems to me when you when you question whether or when we question whether the petitioner is credible so and he's going to go back and practice that that's a decision to be made by the which we can't raise and it wasn't addressed by the board i mean the most recent country imports in there is from two thousand and twelve in this case originated in two thousand and fifteen or two thousand and sixteen i would think that a more current form of country imports would also be reviewable as well so that all that goes to the merits one that is correct and that even if we do yes that's correct your honor so the board used the word likely twice which you would agree is not the standard right now i agree that it was not the most artful couching of terms in there but i do i do want to point you to like i said pages eighty two thousand three hundred and eighty four dollars of the record which is the initial decision and you can see that the court didn't change like how it applied the law to the facts it just didn't clearly state how it was playing it very specific term of art in the immigration context and a separate legal requirements then the well founded fear standard the likely standard applies to withholding of removal which by law explicitly requires fifty percent or more in order to establish eligibility for withholding or removal so simply saying that these are just two words were parsing is not correct when we're talking about two words with legal term of art in a different and much higher substantially higher legal standard with respect to the fact that mr wong has not presented any evidence that the chinese government is looking for him that was not the basis of the board's decision the board simply stated that the form of harm that he that he may and their words may face would not rise to the level of persecution without further analysis and this court again given the record of the way following members are treated in reeducation camps which in the board's words may be a possibility the board is not explain why that treatment which can include  torture sexual abuse and other forms of mistreatment would not rise to the level of persecution your honor just to refer to your question again about that this is a self induced change this is  a prima fascia standard in the prima fashion a standard requires assuming all of the facts are true unless inherently disbelieve a bull the board has to presume the facts true in deciding the motion to reopen and they have misstated when i say that the issue is a matter of rest you caught and can't be challenged our point is that it can't be challenged on the motion to reopen stand stage we completely can see the government would have every opportunity before the immigration judge if they wanted to present facts challenging mr goings sincerity of his beliefs and any other facts we don't that we would not claim that there is registered a crowd with respect to that we are just simply asking to give him an opportunity for hearing on what he claims and the reasons that he claims to have a fair return for those reasons we would ask the court to look and i just ask you question of course just turn on one word but if the word likely were not used in the sentence or sentences where it is used  wouldn't be arguing if there was an error right with respect to the our st argument that there's a misapplication of the legal standards required probably not no but the fact that they used the legal term of art in analyzing the fact  does indicate that the board applied an incorrect legal standard and certainly leaves this court to guess whether or not it did care given its mishmosh of various legal standards to get there is no cite to a case that use that legal term of art they cited to the right my experience in immigration where'd the adjudicating agencies whether it's the board or the immigration judges are very aware of the various terms of art that apply to the various standards required  please the court i don't know but for a con a tele for the very st time in the forty year history of the international emergency economic powers act the government here prosecuted a foreign national for conduct committed abroad for purportedly evading or avoiding the imposition of secondary sanctions that is sanctions on foreigners restricting access to u s markets based on a finding by the secretary of the treasury that they've been properly done business with iran for for reasons set forth in our brief we think that was reversible error with the limited time i have here today i was planning subject of course questions on focusing on our st issue and the brief that is whether this was even a crime of vision or avoiding nd or sanctions and the last issue which is whether it was a historic interpretation of the regulation issue it only referred to prohibitions that are already in place not prohibitions that might yet be imposed if the nd or sanctions had already  one is it involves only existing prohibitions we have a nd argument that because there was no showing that this involved the regulation refers to transactions you know subject by people or per property that's subject to the argument but i think it's even more compelling if you just focus on the fact that there was no prohibition in place now if you look at the government argues that you have to give a void a different meaning than evade or else you'd be surplus couldn't have had the meaning that the government tries to ascribe to it and the government of course the treasury knows about all of these other orders which is why it's given the order the same interpretation or given the regulations the same interpretation that we have that when you talk about used to define each other and they're set up by within one comma so it's like vader avoid attempts to violate except and so you should interpret them i think together at a minimum that's a reasonable interpretation unless you find that that's foreclosed eighty the department of treasury took the position up until essentially the government the prosecution here overrode it for purposes of the i think the th superseding indictment took the position that it only referred to existing prohibitions  harmless error the government tries to argue that because there are two ways it could have violated our uber conspiracy both primary sanctions and conspiracy to avoid secondary sanctions that that was harmless error but as we point out even though he was committed to bank fraud he was also acquitted of conspiracy or i'm sorry you can also quit of money laundering and money laundering as two elements bringing money to the united states and violating one of those other crimes bank fraud or are you a conspiracy so they're inherently consistent verdicts in this co evidence that you can send it does this harmless error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of the inconsistent verdicts you can't sit in a survey found that he brought this money into the united states with the remaining time i'd like or i'm sorry what that's as and i think so that brings us to the nd point which is that the government