testimony as true therefore the two questions before the court or this one whether or not he suffered past persecution and to whether or not there's a well founded fear of future persecution and we believe that in both of these questions the answer should be yes of the cases actually cited by the board in denying asylum in this case is you can solids and your honors in that case i believe that it is a very specific holding by the court in the ninth circuit that is specifically applied to the facts of that case but this particular case is distinguishable in this particular case it is not a single isolated incident but a series of acts that do amount to persecution in the case and who was very specific they found no past persecution because they felt that number one the position in that case did not suffer injuries of any kind did not require any kind of medical attention and essentially they said he had to report for five times but after that the government essentially lost interest him in this case completely different in this particular case the petitioner did suffer injuries he testified the had bruises and also i believe he said the skin on his back was also penetrated and he required medical attention and also he continued to report after to the police even after he was released from detention not only that but they continued to require them to report there was no i guess cutting off of the reporting period he continued to report up until the time that he essentially decided to leave did he attend any any more home church meetings after he was arrested no your honor in this case he testified that when you reported every every week he was continually asked about his activities that he was threatened that he would not attend the home church again and again this is another fact that is distinguishable from goo in that booth this is the court's pacifically said that he was not objective we able to attend the home church where in this case he was  and his mother was also arrested and interrogated and she was subject to some similar probation is that correct yes but his mother remained in china and she essentially continued to report that i believe it was for a period of two years and then at that point the government said we'll ok that's and do we know whether she's returned to attend a home church in china that was not specifically stated in the test that the country apart looks like it's a little bit mixed on what happens with home churches it looks like in some areas they are tolerated and in other areas they are not they are not tolerated it was a very specific as to what regions we could anticipate that and yes i believe i think i think every single region is different and it depends on where you are in who you are dealing with i mean i believe that home churches in general in the country of china are considered to be illegal but there are some i guess areas in which there are tolerated as long as they were mean small and unobtrusive and do not essentially spread out a little bit honour's so what i'm saying is in this case the series of acts come buying together doesn't amount to persecution this is not a single isolated incident and i believe that that's one of the main issues that i just threw out the ninth circuit i believe that this particular case has been misapplied by many judges in the fact that they just simply cite a single isolated incident as a crutch for denying asylum based upon no past persecution where i believe that this is a very specific case with a very narrow holding and also your honour's and i would also like to point out that the justice beans are in in the descent into specifically pointed out that well in his argument and therefore there was no need to have him to continue to report and so i believe that this reporting of what requirement weekly where you continue to ask him what his activities are continue to threaten him this is part of the persecution this is a continuing  already through that correct correct right and so that leads to why he has a well founded fear of future persecution he testified that once he left the country and the authorities had discovered that he had not been reporting as he was required they came to his home and they started asking questions where he is and essentially threatening his family and saying you must come back and do this and i believe you testified that the country legally did not yes or right he left the country legally with a student visa i believe right and i believe the testament testified that they came at least five or six times in the next couple years checking on occasionally to see if if he had returned or something like that and so we believe that he does also meet the well founded fear standard which is simply a one in ten chance and based upon his own credible testimony subjectively certainly he testified that he was afraid to return but also objectively i believe that his own credible if you want to say some time for a battle just a thank you ok let's hear from the government mr stanton briefly again undoubtedly unpleasant but not the type of detention of such length that would meet the extreme standard of persecution he also says that he was just said that he was fine thousand r and b which i understand to be the equivalent of five hundred dollars or slightly less that's certainly not trivial but i'm just not the type of economic persecution least of no testimony counsel all of that would beat all of that might be fine and good if you just had to pay a five hundred dollars fine and withstand the unpleasantness of being arrested and beaten by the police just on on one time occasion and then was allowed to go back to church the problem is is that he was monitored every week and he was sufficient to cost by itself to constitute persecution what's different for me about this case is that he is monitored and monitored very carefully to ensure that he does not attend church in the future  we don't have any deep within an inch of our life to suffer persecution it's not the only way that we can suffer persecution but when the government has is preventing him from attending his home church by monitoring him on a weekly basis where he knows why isn't that if the government coerces you to agree not to practice your religion but why wouldn't that be passed persecution as of the date that it happens because i would  religion but it wasn't like they said oh you can go to st patrick's you can go to st john well well i mean the whole bar as we know that was where his religion was being practiced in that area but i mean there's also the board also it wasn't like st patrick's in st john's if you're you know the country report is a little ambiguous but it certainly sounds like well yes you can practice in which you can go to sichuan you know which is a thousand miles away and two hundred because there are other churches that are recognized the methodists the baptists the catholics and felt that that that this that that's ok i mean we wouldn't accept this this argument coming from from russia that you may be a jehovah's witness as long as you're russian orthodox that that well your honour's as to the excesses argument or the government's argument about various cases that you may submit you know the point i want to bring to court today is that goo should not be applied very broadly that this was a specific case about specific facts in that every single case is different in every single case should be essentially adjudicated on its own facts and so government counsel submitting whatever case from whatever circuit about whatever circumstantial if we're if we're forced to a position of trying to decide between but it seems to me your strongest argument is to say it has nothing it has something to do with the beating but the beating is really the deterrent for not continuing to attend church places not reporting requirement and what she's got to go every weekend and and  reassure the police that he didn't go to church this week i agree with you your honor and you know as i as i argued in my own brief and as i stated before the point of this case is that is the is a series of acts by the government as you said not just the detention not just the beating but continuing to say you need to report every single week and during the reporting continuing to threaten and continuing to ask him what have you been doing this week this is a series of acts not simply just one single what's what's your best case for the proposition that preventing someone from attending the church of their choice under threat of arrest constitutes persecution well your honor you know the board in its decision specifically said that well basically he what he didn't have to renounce his belief that christianity and that strikes me as i mean in in a century preventing him from attending the home church it is tantamount to renouncing your belief in christianity i mean i suppose yes in his heart he can still believe in the religion and i believe he testified that he can you can just continue to read the bible on his own when he had to hang it on those games books they didn't well i think it doesn't specifically state that whether his particular bibles constitute whether he somehow got another one but the point is that he c i suppose in his own heart read the bible and believe in the faith secretly i suppose but he was unable to attend the home church they specifically said you cannot attend the whole do you have a case that suggests that that kind of act by the government religious regime is required to conform to or is punished for failure to comply with laws that are fundamentally our abhorrence to that person's deeply held religious convictions the resulting anguish should be considered in determining whether the persecution but that the resulting anguish should be determined or should be it should be termed should be considered in determining whether or not the past persecution resulted and we believe again that the series of acts that that plus everything else that occurred combined does amount to past persecution ok thank you all right thank you mr chow we thank both counsel for the argument over sessions is submitted