will be providing rebuttal and we'd like to reserve two minutes for your honour's this court should grant mr cho's petition for three reasons first undergo obvious sessions the record in this case compels a finding of past persecution the you sessions are remarkably similar to the facts of this case like mr go up mr cho as a devout christian who was arrested while illegally worshipping at a christian home church in china mr cho was detained for two days interrogated electrocuted he sustained bruises and bleeding come from the the physical beating that your client suffered strikes me as perhaps not  police put conditions on her part him to report weekly so what what do we know about what the chinese required of him absolutely or honor the pledge which mr cho signed has always maintained comprised  prohibition on his religious exercise under the penalty of perjury he wrote in his asylum application that he was unable to practice his religion and consequently that is why he fled to the united states but we know what the pledge actually said your honor the mr cho was forced to undergo indicated that the pledge prevented him from associating with his fellow christians i attended church and also prevented him from preaching christianity we don't have that in the record mr cho testified credibly about the fact that he was interrogated about whether he'd been in contact with his fellow church members and whether he was engaged in propagandizing the cult he also wrote in his appeal would like to recognize that in one pecans aulus this court recognized that an instance of electrocution as occurred in the present case may on its own comprise physical harm that is sufficient to establish past persecution and prevented from attending church and the way mr cho in the present case was now as discussed the facts of mr cho's release are virtually identical to the facts of mr gwazi release the weekly interrogation sessions the fact that he had to report him was subject to questions about whether he was engaged in religious exercise and the fact that this essentially amounted to a prohibition on his ability to lead a christian life  persecution you also have another crime under the convention against torture and it seems to me the considerations they are are quite different why in your view are some substantial evidence  held that past torture that occurs which in this case would be the beating of the electrocution that except that it seems to me that the b r is holding here is that accepting the testimony as credible what happened did not rise to the level of torture as distinct from persecution so what's wrong with that torture is pretty extreme in the present exceeds the physical harm experienced in those two cases and compulsive finding of past persecution so the distinction though that you were addressing was between  and torture is that in your view a distinction that produces a different outcome in this case in other words can the conduct against mr joe  persecution and not torture the conduct committed against mr cho may compel a finding of past persecution without rising to the level of torture however based on the facts of this case the harm which he underwent is sufficient both standards in addition to the b i a s error and failing to find that mr cho underwent past persecution it also failed to it also failed when it rejected his claim of future persecution it alternately mischaracterized and ignored vital record evidence indicating that mr cho has an objective well founded fear of future persecution if he has returned to china  mis characterize the period that mr cho spent in china following his initial release as one without harm when in fact he was undergoing ongoing harm during this period of time because he had been forced to renounce his religion and was subject to ongoing government monitoring and continuous weekly interrogation sessions about whether he'd been engaged in practicing his faith further b i m disregard of the country condition reports that mr cho provided which indicate that chinese christians a group of which he is a member are consistently harassed detained and sentenced to prison as a result of worshipping in china in some instances chinese parents have been forced to sign pledges saying they will not attend home churches as a condition of registering their children for school further do you have a question for i do your supplemental reply brief argues that if we were to determine that the petitioner had established past persecution that the respondent shouldn't be given an opportunity only man to rebut the presumption of future persecution but in your supplemental opening belief it seemed that you conceded that upon every man that that opportunity should be given to the government can you straighten me out on what your position is certainly your honor this a in that the ira wrongfully failed to write that's why we would correct it send it back to the b i a for profit proceeding why would we go ahead and decide something that has not been addressed by the agency if this court determines that it is necessary to remand the case for further perceiving so that the agency can apply one of the sessions in the first instance and are above the well founded fear of future persecution and remand at the very least is warranted so that the agency can have an opportunity to comply with ren because the immigration judge in the rebuttal when the time comes certainly i appreciate that court i'm here on behalf of the attorney general and i think that really the only matter that is before this court is whether the petitioner suffered past persecution in the first instance if this this seemed to me almost identical to the twenty eighteen case so i'm sure i'm pronouncing all these names wrong but i mean it's it's eerily similar down to you know two slaps in the face officer so how how do you distinguish that case in which we had all but substantial evidence did not support a finding of no past persecution earlier on or that finding the court never reached the decision as to whether the physical harm rossa level past persecution in the first instance and in fact what i've begun referring to as the gal two thousand and eighteen footnote six seems to say infer that this court precedent seems to want to be getting away five of the a r and generally what would occur when you went to report the policeman would ask me to or question me if i were in touch with any of the church members if i were engaged in propagandizing the cult to anyone else they had report every wednesday yes hon finding of no past persecution is not supported by substantial amounts that's all well your honor the i believe it's footnote one where they say that this is an inference that you may take it's not an inference that is compelled if you look at the declaration that he first signs and i'm looking at the ministry of record on for sixty one when with reference to the promissary letter he signed this promissary letter with no explanation of what is in fact in the promissory letter and in view of my situation trying to protect myself i had to sign the promissory letter after my family paid my bill as released back home with conditions what did the promise or letter said the punt the fact is that the record is devoid of this and then he shows up and we don't even know what he's saying to in response to these inquiries which are  indulgence i wrote it down which are being characterized as interrogations he's showing up and well you know the i j made findings of fact here that factor in and it includes the findings concerning the interrogation that he was interrogated about the list of church members the purpose of the meetings that he ended up being kicked shocked have t poor it all over him was shocked with a mockery of time twice it's told him he'd go to a labor camp if he didn't sign the affidavit which he did under protest so and it says here that he was as a condition of release required to report every wednesday and the police inquired every week whether he contacted the other members so those are the findings of the  the pledge and in the pledge there is record as testimony that says i was required in the pledge to give up my religion that's just not in this record well he was required to give up the names of other people and demanded whether he preached christianity so it's not identical what he was required to tell the police every week sprint and tim of dating you said not certainly not or there's nothing about this that is satisfying or what do you think is going to happen when the police asked me or question me if i were in touch with any of the church members and he answered yes or when the police asked me if i were engaging in propagandizing the cult to anyone else and he subsequent follow up and there's if there's not even a testimony as to if he fell to how he responded or how he felt about these i frankly in impugning my own he felt about it was he left he left f yes your honor he left he reported for six months during that time he was able to acquire a passport and a visa and he left on his visa six months after this happened i to your question judge by being my my personal feelings or understanding of what would have happened is just it's just not supporting the record and these are inferences that there's they're not compelled they're simply inferences that drop based on a lack of evidence and in the first it was in the first instance it was his burden to put forward all of this evidence he was represented by counsel and frankly the representations as to what happened in this interrogations are singular there's one question on it there's no follow up on it the subsequent dialogue goes into does he practice here in the united states so to that end it's to make this a prohibition  frank i know that's how you might to characterize it but it seems to me the physical harm that was suffered in this case shelton's past persecution yes your honor and did not end the immigration judge as the finding finder of fact way the sum total of evidence he was that he had water splashed on him or tea poured on him he you know these events happened he was beaten he was prodded and found that they did perhaps the fact that tilted the scales towards persecution where there was employment consequences there were the follow up inquiries there was a pledge that was substantiated with testimony as to the dean sum total of that pledge whereas here prodding which which you know i'm not going to underscore i would lose credibility in this court but when you there were other factors that were absent there was the absence of medical treatment which enough itself is came up with a decision out of nowhere he balanced all of these findings with in conjunction with this court case law and found it to be not persecution if there are no further question i don't believe that there are thank you thank you for your time your honor and might and i time is over but the only the only finding that is compelled in this case is to uphold the board and the immigration judge thank you and to find an inference that mr cho forfeit his or his religious practice as was the case and both was importantly both of those pledges in those cases said different things but it's not about what the pledge says  it's about what's the pledge does and here again we know that mr cho was unable to live his christian life because he stated in his asylum application he cannot comply with his bail because he cannot give up his believes that air force sixty one he had weekly questioning questionings to use me which is focused on his religious exercise about the identity of his church members and propagandizing the cult and again this is different from the pledge of the antigovernment pledging to was not developed on it was mentioned it was not developed in your opening arguments what what what is that please go ahead after so because there was a favorable credibility finding in this case the i g needed to provide both question of what conditions the police placed on it so that they were a couple facts are a couple pieces of evidence that were pointed out as not being provided there were letters about the severity of harm confirming his actual physical injuries and there were letters from fellow home church members to see if they had suffered similar persecution or to the same level of persecution but there was nothing explicitly about reporting requirements to confirm that you had reported these were pieces of evidence that went to either future persecution or his fellow home church members and it was not mr cho's obligation to provide such evidence it was the ideas obligation instead to provide him with notice and an