of proof an applicant need only show to a reasonable degree that he or she will be persecuted if we move to his country of origin the supreme court has underscored the standards leniency noting that even a one in a ten chance of suffering persecution would make an applicant's fear well founded this court stated a fear of persecution is object really reasonable where a reasonable person in the application circumstances would fear future persecution if we moved to his native country and lastly the reasonable person standard has been described as an objective test indicating that an applicant's fear of persecution has some basis in reality validated by specific concrete facts  your honour's the respondent in this case petitioner in his case was found credible found to be a credible practicing catholic for the past four years before appearing in front of an immigration judge introduce him to the church in he continued to go to church for four years and the judge found him to be a credible practicing catholic the country reports the international freedom international religious freedom reports clearly state that there is a reasonable possibility of persecution against catholics why because the chinese government does not recognize the holy city the vatican as  loyalty to the vatican are not permitted to register as legal entities proselytizing in public or unregistered places of worship is not permitted so you have a religion that is supported by the vatican that is led by the pope where you want to say that every catholic from china so in the united states is invited to who has a reasonable fear of persecution if we go down that road it could influence how decisions are made because these are fear of an influx of millions of people if that was going to happen it would have happened we have to take this case on a case by case basis and ask ourselves this person does he have a reasonable possibility of being persecuted based upon his practice of religion and  a reasonable possibility based upon a reasonable person's belief his the chinese government does not recognize his religion simply put as i understand these cases your client would have to either that seeing in your brief argument that he would be singled out for bush occasion because nobody in charge of those who is or you have to show you tell me if that's wrong so we would therefore after stated and found to be credible on the record that he would not attend a government sanctioned catholic church and he said that he wouldn't because his priest down at williamsburg holding that was not a legitimate church correct because he thought that  by the reading he said so what that proves is that the priest at williamsburg say is that the that the catholic church in downer said that when bibi go further and say and agree that the priest downer understood that the priest doesn't bind us you know and the priest was just a lay witness was not an expert on the conditions country conditions in china honor my client testified that he would not attend the government sanctioned church that he tended underground church and that he would proselytize the family and friends in china so the argument hence is it is reasonably likely that sometime in his life in the next ten twenty thirty years maybe not the first month that by attending an unauthorized gathering or by proselytizing one of the millions of spies that the chinese government network has or their surveillance cameras that the putting on every corner will bring to his is all well you know the practice to the attention all that the record is making that up no is based upon the fifteen years i got us well it's based upon fifteen years of practice in reading and constantly reading about the situation the security situation in china so it's based upon new york times articles on it so the argument is yes he will be singled out because of these activities of paragraph i'm reading starting line one two three four five six the responded did not establish chinese authorities are or could become aware of this practice of a thousand in the united states that's the in part that's incorrect standard it's could they become aware of  practices of catholicism if he sent back to china it doesn't matter whether they know now it's will his activities of going to underground churches be discovered by the chinese government and that's what we're asking the court how do you differentiate between your client in the other person who's immigrants or from who happens to be a practicing catholic oriel to the vatican wouldn't there be how would you ever differentiate between your quiet all those people i don't think you can i think the law is clear if somebody no matter who they are not if it's a first person or the millionth person enters this country and has a valid claim of religious persecution or fear or religious persecution then the law requires that a be granted asylum and into those laws change that is the way the courts must view this and we cannot your ear is a establish that if one can prove that they are a legitimate practicing sincere catholic or christian from a country that persecutes catholics or christians then they do have a right to asylum but they must prove their own testimony to corroborating witnesses such as the pastor and priest that they are sincere in practice in practitioners and that's up to the immigration judge on their level to determine the sincerity of these claims so with that said questions are there in the individual are there some syrian army which would open the door do for the attorney general the court should deny this petition for review because no record of evidence compelled the conclusion that roman catholic practitioners at underground churches are subjected to a pattern or practice of persecution in china the agency reasonably determined here reasonableness of someone's claim must be proven even though within the time context there is posing counsel mentioned a somewhat permissive standard where perhaps i want to chant intentions might be sufficient what's important to focus on in this case is that an applicant must demonstrate either that they would be singled out or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against people like them or people similarly situated here the government's position is in fact that opposing counsel did not exhaust an argument about individual targeting so the best of the government's understanding of his brief and also the petitioners brief before the board there are no claims that he will be individually harkat even if it's it's possible or if the court views it this way that the petitioner attempted to exhaust such an argument that he would be in visually targeting the government while not conceding that exhaustion occurred would also say that on the merits there's simply little to no evidence in this record that th you the gen case recognize that there was a petitioner who reasonably believed in his own mind subjectively had a fear perhaps that police might target him but the court this court recognized that without any first hand knowledge there's simply no bas for the court or the agency to conclude that that person had demonstrated individual targeting would occur in this case so it is the government's position that that that argument was in fact not exhausted before the agency and thus the agency recently concluded that there was individual targeting with regard to pattern and practice and i mentioned earlier that is a very high standard to meet in fact there are only a couple of cases where circuits around the country have recognized that such a  for the applicant there in her honor is to show the quote thorough or systematic nature of the persecution he fears and i think that's the key to this case the government and the agency made a thorough attempt to review all the documentation produced in this case including but not limited to the two thousand and twelve international religious freedom report that report does not show that there is a thorough or systemic amount of mistreatment levied towards roman catholic practitioners at underground churches with twelve yes your honor i believe that was the i'm not exactly what you have an airbase the reason that the government's position is that that did not happen in this case is that those facts are not represented in the government's brief there's a lengthy section  that i'd be happy to go through in some detail where the opposing counsel is claims about details in the documents that allegedly support compelling a conclusion different from what the agency made here they simply do not support as laypeople i can quote the decision itself the board held on page three of the record quote the country conditions reports do not show that there is a pattern or practice of persecution and no were you i'm sorry your honor that's on the board the agency and this is the board acknowledge that he is an ordinary lay practitioner who attends underground churches and the agency having fairly and carefully reviewed the report found no evidence that there is a pattern of practice of persecution against such a group and that in fact the report on if your honor it was looking earlier for that report there it's centered around pages two afforded to a nine of the record testified on the record he is interested in practicing in an unregistered churches we also have the report which states not only are there many catholics who practice in the sanctioned church but there are also catholics who practice in underground churches there are some allegations of mistreatment of people who practice various religions i would be happy to go through some of those details is there a differentiation in the country report tween practitioners  mistreatment against unspecified religious groups and there are broad characterizations of possible human rights violations against religious groups but it does not specify very many allegations at all against  on several pages in the record the report discusses mistreatment of catholics but those pertain to state sanctioned churches examples include one page one ninety seven one ninety nine two zero one and two of seven of the record and so ultimately your honor i don't think that the report details allegations to any kind of consistent degree of mistreatment much less persecution of people who attend underground churches who are roman catholic the specific group that the petitioner has stated he is a member of and that is the specific evidence he needs to produce in order to demonstrate that's highborn a pattern of practice would also like to add that the issue of whether being forced to practice a religion in secret or not at all whether that rises to the level of persecution is the government's position that that issue while perhaps raised in the particular brief was not exhausted before the agency the agency did not have any opportunity to make a determination of whether such and such a situation might rise to the level of persecution there are some courts the seventh circuit and i think that have dealt with that issue in more detail however it's unnecessary for this court to reach for two reasons and just before i explain those two reasons briefly but i do want to say we have independently just because it's positive finding regarding his lack of well founded fear of future harm and so it's unnecessary to reach th issue regardless so the two reasons why this issue of whether it rises to the level of persecution to prevent someone from practicing or not that's not before the court this issue this first one is that the petitioner is no challenge there is an opportunity for the agency to evaluate that there is no evidence present produced about past persecution or a well founded fear of persecution on the basis of i won't be allowed to prevent my practice my religion there is testimony that the petitioner feared arrest which is kind of a classic arrest and detention you know being attacked in detention that's kind of a classic example of persecution but the position didn't articulate his claim as i fear i'll never be able to practice my religion instead he voluntarily stated that he wanted to practice religion in underground church that the country conditions reports state is an available option second reason is that he simply wouldn't be forced to practice his religion in secret again he has stated that he wants to practice in an underground church and there are at least some other people who are not sure how many are practicing in underground churches but the record suggests there are certainly some people doing that and that in fact in certain areas it's permitted and overlooked as i mentioned earlier finally the petitioner produced another country report after the agency had already reached a final an administrative leave final decision in his case through the twenty eight day letter that was in the record and in the government's response the government explained about the order of removal should not be considered at this stage and again in london the court recognized the only remedy if you want additional information to be considered is to file a motion to reopen back with the agency for them to consider very considerate it wouldn't change the result  i don't have the benefit of agency expertise on that question but i can say sometimes there will be a new reports with more torture in them or another seemingly significant word i wouldn't say that that would be irrelevant to the conclusion but there's certainly nothing in that report that would require alternative conclusion that the agency didn't reach in this case and even if it were just positive it wouldn't be possible for the agency of to consider that at the time and there's it's there's statutory authority that prevents the court from considering it now  cafe who want to practice in the underground church would be persecuted insufficient evidence to show that he mr applicant would be targeted himself  these are looking for him or that all people like him would be targeted because that's the other kind of problem he's has available to him the pattern of practice yes your honor but it's certainly evidence that in china persons who practice religion there's a whole comfortable situation that right i think that's very around her think the agency acknowledged the unfortunate situation in china regarding people being able to practice their religion freely certainly in the context of our robust first amendment framework here in united states it might not seem like an ideal situation there to us however congress has set forth a strict standard and the agency has propagated regulations that have not been challenged in this case that apply that state that the standard is is rather high it is either that you must show the police essentially know about you or you are otherwise going to be targeted by the police or someone that they are willing to let you hurt you or that the government is targeting an entire group that you're a member of and that is not demonstrating this road ahead in terms of the reason may help me with it it seemed like at some point it was saying that the state sanctioned catholic church was of no was sufficient and he could show that you could he couldn't practice is religion is a decision based in parliament i think you're correct your honor and when you identify if i'm not mistaken the immigration judge's decision it seems to focus heavily on the assumption the immigration judge appears to have made which is that perhaps this petitioner will practice in a state sanctioned church and that is not actually the focus of the government's defense of this decision by the agency because the the board issued its entirely sufficient alternative ruling that it's not so much that he will practice in  the church where six million people practice but that he has said he will practice in an underground church and because he's going to be a lay person in an underground church and because the records you've got show that such people are subjected to a pattern or practice of persecution that is the you this morning i've heard this court talk a lot about reasonable miss in my case the case before us which we smoke asking us to search within i think and so i asked this court  anyone on this panel doubt the chinese government's authority authoritative rule their desire to maintain a one party communist system where there is no threat objective test he says that you waive the argument that the applicant would be singled out for process persecution as opposed to establishing a pattern or practice of persecution you agree that your argument was waived and if you show us one well i would respectfully disagree and say that the argument was raised when the petitioner stated that he would continue practicing his registered church at a register church in china is a government church and the at the authentic church roman catholic church is the underground church stating basically that because of his disapproval with the government church he would attend and authorized churches and therefore could be singled out as a result the government wants you to believe that it's ok back to china you could practice your religion nobody's going to be known but the chinese government is not concerned with that it's simply inaccurate as i was stating the chinese government is threatened by com the rise of religion it's a threat to their rule which court judge can us what would happen if you look at delay this country ports well you would see that there is a continuous uptick in religious persecution because religion is slowly spreading throughout china and as it spreads it will be suppressed the same way the chinese government has for forty years suppressed tibetans from worshiping their own dalai lama just like they want to choose their the dalai lama for the tibetans they want to choose the leader of the the pope for the catholic church that's not freedom of religion that does not allow an individual to practice his religion freely so we asked this court to consider the chinese government authoritarian rule and desire to remain in power in crush anything that threatens that when considering does this young man who is found to be a credible practicing catholic have