they the husband and wife they cannot register their marriage they have to hold a convention those traditional chinese wedding in a restaurant they cannot register because they have no status there and open a business grocery store but they cannot apply f morning your honor may please the court i am josh brownstein for the attorney general the evidence of record in this case is quite a long way from compelling the conclusion that the petitioners are eligible for asylum the petitioners resign a concedes in panama for nine years they owned a business owner operated business which they lost not due to persecution or any sort of harassment by the government but due to civil unrest that followed the noriega regimes fall and that's evidenced by the fact that you know i think i think ali not only doesn't control this case but it's a helpful case to look at to to show how how compelling the evidence is rather substantial the evidence is in support of the board's decision  saying that number one if there is good indirect evidence on the record that credible evidence that the yelling never had a right for me in there then i think the ali can use collapses the presumption analysis and i think it's i think it's wrong to decide i don't think even if it were correctly decided this case falls within it when all you have been you have a somali female who had terrible things happen to her in  in somalia and she fled to ethiopia she was in the lowest plan and here's how it's totally distinguishable from this case she testified that because of her plan and she was in a low a very low caste because of her staff status there years they operated a business they raised three children who are citizens of panama they they they had on the side of their and they came and went with absolutely no impediment from the is that any alien cannot adversely possess the right to remain in the country and ali remain under the radar and never availed herself of the immigration system in  and i think that is quite significant because here are these petitioners apply for extensions a total of by their own testimony a total of seventeen times and that's just the extensions seventeen times and they also and never had any problem in ali the petitioner never availed herself and had never any in running with the immigration system had absolutely no dealings with them the other i being placed in a relocation camp now in this case the fishers lived openly they owned and operated a grocery store and they left by the way not because in the testimony is pretty clear right now your honor according to the wife no record of five sixteen she said a war broke out the whole restaurant was destroyed she referred to the grocery store as a restaurant and i don't know why that discrepancies in the record and she said we have nothing left so that's why we returned to china if they had fled panama because they were harassed or persecuted on one of the protected grounds but they didn't they left because they didn't have any money and they thought they could do better in china as and then they came back to panama and there's no trouble getting in and that's key because they're not flying residence and so that further undercuts their late breaking assertion that that the that the backlash against the noriega regime caused mass mass dissatisfaction with the chinese presence her sister in law was channeling the children to the united states she was traveling back and forth of hannah my chinese citizen back and forth to panama bringing the children to the united states on visitor visas there was as well  you know when there's not a problem there are many problems with petitioners position one of which is they rely on documents that they say proves that they that they were not in the system in panama there are two problems with it one under the which i submit survives for the reasons i said under the chill presumption those documents don't prove that they couldn't go back all they prove if anything is in any government didn't keep records of them but there's a bigger problem with the documents which is not been explored and i was reading the documents that they relied very heavily on the record the documents have a clear mistranslation of the record situation and the spanish speaker can say sixteen of the record but the document doesn't say that there is no computer record of this person in our system that's page fourteen of the record and the only reasonable translation of that sentence in spanish on page sixteen is we cannot offer you better information for reasons that our system of computers finds itself down the computers were not working so there they're sort of explosive documents that is supposed to conclusively show that there's no computer records on actually says that the computer wasn't functioning on the day that the request was responded to those documents that the board gave little weight for them because of the fact that they've returned to panama and and rightly so i would show that they noriega post noriega panama situation was hostile to chinese so the fact that they may have known some chinese people even if credible they know in some chinese people who were deported there is nothing in the record is support that it was a mass expulsion of chinese mass if i could have one more moment i would say that with respect to ali i think that indeed you are a strict reading of ali would totally eviscerate the presumption and i don't think that