and substantial evidence supports her well founded fear that she will be persecuted or tortured just like the other pro democracy activists she has supported since her rival united states as why  asked this court today to reverse the b a s order and remain for further proceedings because the be a committed numerous legal heirs including miss characterizing miss reese position and activism within the chinese democracy despite being a pro se litigant turning first to miss ruth activism misrule most notably has donated or printed or supported some of the most high profile pro democracy activists now either currently under watch by the chinese government or currently in prison we know that they're under watch by the can i need government today but you're out of this is supported by the record there's two individuals specifically that she has supported substantially the first being mr wu gone and he is currently in jail and has consistently been tortured or persecuted quite by the chinese government is if he's in jail and in china correct your honor this is noted on pages six ninety one to six ninety democracy activists regarding the chinese government however given china's advance surveillance state there is substantial evidence that they are likely aware under the cardoza france take a stance or standard that there's at least a ten percent chance that they are aware of  the position of the agency which means that the agency is not required to draw the inference that because there's been some publicity this persons under government but your honor under the standard here it's whether or not under the asylum standard whether or not the chinese government whether there is a reasonable possibility that they're going to target misrule based off of her pro made by the immigration judge our of the i did not make an adverse credibility if i did so under this court standard and mean by the sessions as well as on me because her she's presumed credible for purposes of this of well i mean what the standard there she would still be presumed credible for purposes of appeal but upon remounted to be ira it could be they could make an adverse credibility fine and if they choose to have her guardian that activism i think that further shows that there  no there is no b c b chapter in honolulu it demonstrates that miss rue was attempting to spread her activism and spread and spread what she believes to be very important to her which is that going to those meetings she specifically was told that the chinese government is spying on them and this was noted on the record and on page ninety five or mr stillwell by the members that community and  contacted by the f b i after he was detained in china noting that the the chinese government had infiltrated these organizations and were did we seek out pro democracy activists in order to crush this uprising and or to ensure that china that democracy did not spread to china is because china has been persistent and its in its preservation of the communist government and system and that pro democracy activists are not permitted to spread their ideas or allowed to speak freely and this is what this mr discusses in her testimony it's extensively on a r one seventy four to one eighty where she discusses ideas about freedom of speech freedom of assembly freedom of assembly private capitalism these are ideas and and thoughts that do not occur in china and are not part of the chinese society this is all stem ruse realization that the big lie which was the tiananmen square massacre was covered up by the chinese government which is why she became an activist and now why she fears that she is going to be persecuted by the chinese government and if there's no further questions i'd like to reserve the remaining time for a bottle for my colleague yes thank you that she is not is not establish that there is any individualized evidence that the chinese government would be aware or is likely to become aware or that she is similarly situated to any of the others that  credibility determination that's correct and they said but he noted he made alternative decision even soon she was credible so for our perspective we assume that she's credible isn't that correct was credible were we consider her to be credible is not right i think you can consider her to be credible because the b a a didn't well actually i think what it is is you look to the i do use decision  to supplement what the but the b i i found to be i didn't address that so you can look at what the immigration judge found as well right now i understand that but for credibility purposes made were clearly erroneous there is support that this room was not credible even her star witness admitted that he has advertised for people how they can get immigration benefits through declaring that they're members of the c d p like like what rooted here she didn't the people that she compared herself to they were leaders they were active on social media they had nationwide leadership roles they had performed organizational roles misrule cannot say anything of the same she says she submitted photos where she's sitting at a table with others and where where she's in a crowd among many she doesn't identify who the people are she has unattributed text below the photos which she submitted later she had eight years in remove the proceedings when she could have translated the text below the photos and and only attempts to submit it to this court let me ask a different question new chinese democratic party because the chinese democratic party was outlawed banned in china but so it's unclear how how much affiliation they have something supportive of democracy or pays for such writing to be published you know it can make a claim and her claim here is very weak where she has submitted you know of a few photos where it's very hard to identify her she doesn't identify who else is in the photos with her she has this text but there's no proof they were actually published on youtube and that the chinese actually would be interested in her we're just trying to do with people who are doing  well be you know found that the photo appears to be staged and that her evidence submitted it seems that she had more of an economic motivation rather than a genuine political affiliation with c b p the i j a found  board on notice of the specific issues and what aspects of the decision are incorrect and why i general challenge is insufficient and so what we have here is in her notice to appeal she says that the i g made error point she did not present those claims to the board in her in her brief she lays it out as a fact that that she applied for asylum withholding of removal and kept protection for her her primary challenge was to the can't i can't recall exactly what do the country kittenish and reports have to say about whether or not china only is concerned about those who are leaders and sort of organizers of the c d p visit just to that country condition of course just so well that's all chinese really concerned about not low level sort of members out there demonstrating draw distinctions of all in the country condition report from what i can recollect i don't i don't recall that the country condition reports said that china is interested in and like the idea said the photos some of them appear to be staged and you know her like again like i said her witness admitted that he was trying to recruit people into the c d p for the purpose of the morning honors and may it please the court in the sweeney also be on behalf of the petitioner hong li room three brief points on rebuttal first the b i a did not express fully adopt the holding was not required to adopt the inference is from her testimony even credible testimony may not be persuasive or sufficient the immigration judges entitle to make reasonable inferences from the direct and circumstantial evidence as a whole such as she did here yes your honor under sail the ashcroft the b i must make an express credibility finding in order for that sort of conclusion to be drawn that she is not credible that she is lying and because there wasn't any express inferences and to make findings based upon with even credible testimony yes your honor and the record leads to inferences that are very clear here the first of all the c d p may have different names in different locations but on two fifteen to sixteen of the record we can see that that is for the members safety because the members are routinely persecuted in china additionally the wire transfer made from hong rue with a one thousand dollars donation to woo gone to the chinese construction bank and on page to a seven inch to two o five the wreck we can see that political dissonance like we're gone are routinely persecuted the likely on the government's radar and additionally the record does contain information about a not a leader in the c d p but a teacher who joined the c d p return to china and was persecuted and that was on page nine five nine of the record unless this court has any further questions thank you thank you thank you thank you very much we appreciate the arguments and thank you for