is there a difference between the act itself and me a person's reaction to the act that is when if there were a woman in the same situation as your client who would be willing to permit an examination but would still find it to be entirely inappropriate is she to be treated the same way as a situation more serious in this you know why and why when i'm looking at the when i'm looking at the definitions here i'm trying to figure out what the course of act is in the extent to  examination against her will could so on the continuum of invasive procedures that judge and keep talked about at the beginning your position would be  the that the threat of having to undergo gynecological examination should be sufficient to constitute a well founded fear persecution correct that is curr they had almost been raped and described their reactions does that factor in to our determination as well does there have to be and i go back to a question i asked earlier just moments reaction count on this or is it simply the act of doing the examination or the threatened act of doing the examination sufficient to constitute a well found persecutor in the past or dirt should have a well founded fear of that persecution in the future the answer to that question is no and the reason for that is elbow as this court is well aware we have not addressed this particular issue here or the courthouse talked about the fact  continuum i don't know if the ninth circuit would have found without the other factors there that that would have been persecution given the fact that it did it in such a high standard to meet that other circuits have not march of two thousand and five the second circuit has no request for examination or examination itself or the family planning officials taking someone to a mandated examination none of these things will qualify as asylum simply by saying i'm afraid i've got how to that examination and that simply is not enough to qualify with this extreme concept of persecution now how far we can go in looking at coercion there are is a question  fear other than that in this particular case because of perhaps we can say that the evidence is so compelling in this case that no reasonable gun fire could buy anything other than that she won experience post persecution as she has claimed by the presented the i j a i believe would state that no under the stocks she does not qualify and no one else under these particular ducks just put the request being made would qualify but i don't believe that we are assured of an opinion that  her to have the examination that do not rise to a level of persecution is the government's view that this is this should be viewed under with substantial evidence tossed that the only way to court can reverse that is if the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could not have found that she would that she was not being persecuted in this situation given the facts that are not being disputed between the parties here that simply is not the case what kind of  recognition about what persecution is that this is not a matter for interpretation is to simply taking the stocks that there is there's the armchair certainly hot substantial evidence to conclude on these particular tasks that there was the