morning everyone we have five cases on the calendar the store ning two of them will be argued the three submitted cases are perry v marion leverage incorporated united cases so we are ready to proceed with argument presume the court has a copy of this letter as well but i would like to correct some an erroneous statement here particularly on the second paragraph line three stating that the omission  already released from detention and when he was reporting before the police station and the police officers instructed him to attend this and to underground classes which led since he refused to do so this led  because there were these were mere harassments this was not the basis of his clearly this was not the persecutory event he was consistent that his persecutory event which was the basis of his claim was the arrest his arbitrar it doesn't seem unimportant though i mean he was he had not mentioned before that there were several occasions multiple occasions on which he was instructed to attend these classes and he was physically mistreated slapped and i t aking this into account and considering it is a factor it's hard to see how that's unreasonable and trying to make it make a credibility determination so what am i missing your honor these acts of arrest meant  has already ruled that her arrest must do not lie do not rise to the level of persecution the to the mind of the petitioner he did not mention these because the reason why he came to the united states to ask for asylum was because he was know but his testimony in cross is pretty detailed and he was slapped at least five times that in fact they have arrested him several times at his home and also when they met him on the street isn't that pretty detail information that would be helpful to his claim well yes it could be helpful to his claim but it is not necessary to his claim of persecution because the persecutor event was the arrest the tension and the beatings during that detention was was he ever asked on direct about incidence of harassment of this kind no your honor and was he ever asked a question on direct in the general nature of can you tell us anything else that happened to you in china at the hands of the police that might be relevant to your claim no it was not your honor the question at the direct examination was how were you persecuted in china and he's answer were specific leading questions that asked him about medical treatment and asked him about the n t house church classes that he had not brought up before  yes and maybe the petitioner was wrong in not mentioning it but to him this were minor things and he was not required he was instructed to take this classes and he refused and he was not arrested for  he did not lose his liberty for refusing to do so he was harassed and to him that was an annoyance that i mean to us we should as as lawyers perhaps he should have included that but that does not discount the interview and did he have counsel when he prepared his written application yes he did your honor and i was the counselor on the we always asked our our clients to write the events of persecution and that was what he stated i did not even know about these acts of arrest meant and to him it did not matter he concentrated on the acts of persecution i mean we don't draw out like oh what else and what else on might be in it might be useful in future to ask about additional information that as you put it might seem not important to the person but that you as a lawyer would be able to use to make a stronger application but of course i'm not asking you what you did ask or what counsel you're suggesting that might be a good idea that indeed is a good idea and i have learned my lesson your honor but with respect to this case what our point is that these men are residents do not embellish his claim and should not be the grounds for adverse credibility this case this court in the case of that the real id act which should be taken into consideration here requires that the fact finder should consider the totality of their circumstances and all relevant factors  we feel that the i g was cherry picking on on facts that would support adverse credibility and not considering the other relevant facts whether to tell  please the court the morning my name is tracy jones and i'm appearing on behalf of the respondent the u s attorney general the court should deny the petition for review in this case because substantial evidence supports the avarice credibility finding and the them meeting him on the street or going to his house and telling him to go to these church meetings and then slapping him on page eighty three of the record the petitioner indicated the reasons for his fear of returning to china and why he fled it was specifically that he was persecuted by the chinese government because of his religious practices so therefore the petitioners omission of additional harm at the hands of the chinese government supports the adverse credibility friday there were the two missions that the agency relied on was the f b i the refusal to attend the anti underground church classes and then also the mission of the five to six times that he was beaten the petitioner mischaracterizes these wrong yes well that was yes and that's a physical a physical mistreatment court does say that if the the mission if the mission is just additional details has been added that that is not sufficient to sustain adverse credibility finding but in this case this isn't just an additional detail this is actually additional persecution that the petitioner experience was a question i was asking you if it is not in itself persecution not right if this is all that happened you would presumably be here arguing that  the i understand your point is yes that this is these are additional incidents that contribute to an overall pattern of conduct when i'm asking you is and maybe it's no point belaboring it in and of itself this would not in response to leading questions by the government that specifically asked him about particular subjects that had not been he had not been asked about before yes that's correct your honor but  despite petitioners counsel's claim during her argument in fact he was actually general questions in regards to what type of mistreatment he was going to give us could you give us examples of the shore on page eighty six of the record petitioners counsel acts what were your conditions with regards to the release at that time the only thing at the position i discussed was the bail the fact that he had to denounce his religion and the fact that he had to report every two weeks to the police station on page eighty seven the petitioner's counsel ags there was so he did not mention the condition of being required to attend classes no your hon r this was not a condition of his release this was something that was a direction that was given to him later after i'd been released is that an accurate well the the way that i read the record it appeared that it was a condition because on page i believe it was ninety eight when x it will when he was the telling the events of that surrounding being told to attend these classes he indicated that one point in time that he was i struck there when he went to go report to the police that he had to attend the class how should we apply in the government's view how do we decide whether an omission is minor or not because i had no effect on his actual persecution which was corroborated by other evidence in the record in this case this petitioners is adding additional details about persecution from her alleged persecutors which is the chinese government so therefore this isn't just something that is a supplementary additional detail that's being provided but in fact this is quality showing persecution that's qualitatively different get back to work for three months or something like that that would not be a minor omission right but what the government's point here is that the mission of the fact that he was physically mistreated five to six time is not merely a supplement of his of britain asylum application but if fact a totally different claim of continual persecution at the petitioner experience i also would like to note that on page eighty seven of the record but counsel specifically x did you have any problems after your release and the only thing that the petitioner indicated it was that he was his employment was terminated so therefore there were numerous times throughout the proceedings on both direct and cross that the petitioner was able to present this information but failed to do so therefore based on the record so  your honor the government counsel keeps on stating that there was a can case of continuing persecution and that is not our theory ronna these were acts of harassments that in no way affect the  persecutory claim of the of the petitioner the it was not a condition of his release otherwise he would have stated ready it came out after he was released from detention the only thing was really helpful to think of it in that and did did he embellish just claim or did he not the i j a is cast in the role of the person who has a make a judgement about whether a petitioner is is telling the truth or not to make a credibility determination and fact finders have to make judgments about is in a mission so so trivial that it's unfair to get put too much weight on it or is it is it so much part of the story that one would expect that this would have come out in telling the story originally and if it comes out very late work it comes out only on cross maybe a person is making it up does it really help to try and draw a rules about how to do this is as much as much as to rely on the immigration judges best judgment with our review for out you know for cases where it's really appears not to be supported by the record well it was the urine it was the immigration judges theory that this is bolstering his claim and even the government counsel echoes that embellish nice claim and and which results the adverse credibility determination which does not make sense or is illogical so does our there is follow up by the police that expresses further disapproval of his religious behavior and imposes physical what shall we call it harassment assault battery that is what we are concentrating on the idea was also wrong with respect to using shoe sholin for some cases in authority because that is not the case in this case this is about embellishing or