reviewing this case i was looking at the government's brief and at page eighteen at the the first full paragraph but the second half of the page i'm going to read it very quickly they say to go movie holder and they make the argument that while this court granted a petition for review on potentially similar facts going to be holder unpublished that decision does not assist mr song's claim that he was persecuted on account of a protected anti government political opinion in going the court not only consider the basis for petitioners encounter with the police but also examine whether the record contained reasons other than the imputed political opinion for the police beating and held that it did not i took a look at the going case and that last night it struck me that it was my own case so as i was going through it when you read the opinion i didn't make the connection goes outside in the federal pen dick's but i have the unpublished opinion so as i was literally reading my own brief i noticed a misspelling of gone so my proof it's the same fact i actually used my points from going in this brief and i thought i misspelled some and gone until i realized this was my case and what is not present in that opinion is the fact that it was the same identical argument at the  case is whether or not there's sufficient nexus to the persecution on account of political ground so one should tell us why you think the record supports your contention that there wasn't facts sufficient nexus absolutely  it's you can take any eminent domain case like they did and going i know it's not binding that's why when i first looked i wasn't focused but and you can look at it as when you're protesting the chinese government you're never going to say i'm protesting the chinese government so a comes in and when they get those fact patterns they say the b i will then kind of whipsaw and say you were protesting eminent domain you're just protesting your compensation and that's basically the rationale here for why this case  said there's no nexus to impute a political union and i was my situation in going and they said when they looked at the record they just ignored that because the the previous panel ongoing because you can characterize that about any eminent domain case saying oh you're just mad about the compensation but that's inherently political because when you're talking eminent domain if it's one of our fundamental rights in the constitution because it's a government coming in and saying i'm going to favor these developers or whoever and i'm going to take your property that's inherently political i don't know how you can then go in there get nit picky and say well you're just mad about the compensation so even if he he would have been expressing a political opinion even if he didn't organize the people and have the march  on the office the mayor is asking for more money and saying that i'm entitled to it under theories of eminent domain that would have been a political opinion i believe any time you're questioning the government on the just trying to say he's just not about compensation he wanted more money this was a civil matter ok well maybe but in the us we get a civil matter we get to go to court in china i say to the country conditions report what you can what's your remedy i'm going to strap myself to my house i'm going to set myself on fire so his actions and what he testified to credibly i might add is entirely consistent with the department of state report that says this this is what goes on in china you don't get your day in court you go out you protest and they during his testimony said when the government officials came down to confront him during the protest they asked are you protesting the government and during he testified truthfully i said no but i don't think anybody in china would ever bollen terribly admit that they're protesting the government when confronted by government officials and law enforcement thank you counsel thank you harmed on account of and he imputed political opinion where he merely rejected the what he perceived as an inadequate compensation but is that all he did the record have a lot more  evidence of organizing it to these and protests only over a hundred people showed up and blocked the entrance the government building that seems like a pretty big deal it is a very big deal and what we have argued is that he did so and the one hundred people who accompanied him did so because they were angry that they didn't receive enough money for their property and that they went there to negotiate now we get that from petitioner's testimony petitioner testified that this was a monetary dispute he testified at all times that he spoke with officials that it was a negotiation using the government's position that protests stemming out of eminent domain disputes can never be imputed political pinion absolutely not your honor and it could be under the right fact pattern but here we're not what sort of fact pattern would give  political pinin in the eminent domain dispute between individuals and government officials that aren't present in this case well i can't say or honor i mean i only have this case and these facts and these events in front of me and it's not for the harm now here we have a legitimate prosecutorial interest we have petitioner admitting before the immigration judge that he directed one hundred people to block the entrance to a government building he also admitted to the judge that he did never permit for the demonstration and that such activity in china is against the law but if he were protesting for example the china's population policy under the same fact pattern you would concede that there was a nexus right well i would have to i have to see the record because he said i'm talking to you basically you seem to be if i understand your argument correctly you seem to be saying two things one that if it's a novel if china considers it unlawful protest that it's not a nexus they have a right to prosecute or to that if it's economically based then it can't be politically based it can be politically based economic but in this case he wasn't protesting a policy like the population control policy so that it would give my man or after for a second so when when the testimony was that the a government official said this is an anti government protest why does not indicate it's a computed anti government political opinion because as a lie is that darius the seven you know i was like arise case the supreme court said that it can't be just generalize political motivation there has to be an imputed an opinion that was imputed to him anything you do that's against the law could be considered anti government but here the government had a legitimate claim that he was breaking the law what do you make of the human rights report which indicates that property disputes exactly in this context often turn violent because of collusion between developers and government officials  underpaying home owners property owners and so that's hence the sort of protests it seems to fall squarely within that situation yes the evidence that a country suffers from a particular problem like corruption in the eminent domain sphere is not evidence that this particular petitioner held a political opinion or that the individuals who detained and arrested him believed he had a political opinion now you have to remember that when he was arrested it was the day before the demolition was scheduled he had hung a banner the saudis oppose the demolition and then he's going to die with his property police officers showed up they didn't say anything to him about his of the agency found and the evidence does not compel contrary that the motives of the authorities in this case were because they were upset that he had interfered with their their function interfered with  demolishing the shopping center building there in their motivation was to proceed with eminent domain the city wanted the building the commercial unit and petitioner stood in the way of that so they arrested him after he refused to leave the property after he resisted their directive to come walk with them and while decision now says it was an anti corruption or a political opinion he never expressed any of that before the immigration judge he never does he have to use the words corruption but to express a political opinion absolutely not it's just that he had later put in his brief to the board and you know and  considered doing something anti government he was interfering with a public function and there their statement that he's anti government could have been well you stood in the way of us getting getting this bil don't think i understand your answer in the context of the other issues we've had from china because of course china for a long time had the one child policy that was the law we granted relief in many of those cases but under your scenario we shouldn't have because that was just that we don't know that they were really violating the law he has a document that says this is what he's supposed to be paid per square foot we also have an official that said that they did service on the property will get back to you they never got back to him the point is that we don't know why they offered to give him that lesser amount well i think the human rights report both stars has claimed so you're reading it divorced from what's happening in china well the human rights report i guess and speaks of a policy problem with eminent domain cases and corruption but we have to show our petitions to show the evidence compels a finding that he was sorry i was looking at the compels the finding that he was expressing a political opinion or they imputed one to him and they have to show that it was one central reason so that means but for the imputed political opinion the harm would not have occurred here we have a person who admitted to breaking the law and admitted to not leaving the property when the officers asked him to take a walk so you know you have to he have to show the but for the imputed political opinion this woman of happened and he's admitted to breaking the law he's admitted to not leaving the property and saying that he was going to die with the building so he has to show that the evidence compels so i agree the report does talk of eminent domain corruption but he has to so it was his burden to show that there was an imputed political opinion and now he has to show that the evidence compels that result and that that was one central reason for the  the harm does that have to be the only reason you know it does not have to be the only reason but the case law says that you know he has to demonstrate that but for that protective ground he wouldn't have been harmed in order for it to be one central reason so i just wanted to speak to a couple of points counsel mentioned the same identical argument in the gong case but of course it's not the same identical record there in gon you had an individual who had some dudes who report malfeasance to a higher level government official that's the gone case and you had an individual that was assaulted by a group of assailants after he attempted to report here you never had any of value never accused when you had someone who was beat up in prison and other prisoners told to attack him after he was arrested for a crime refusing to interfering with public function and after he refused to