good morning your honour's may please the court my name is franklin nelson attorney for petitioners there are two principal issues in this case the first is whether the immigration judges address credibility findings supported by substantial evidence the second is whether or not the petitioners credible testimony establish that he has a well founded fear of returning of persecution if you returns to china petition or apply for asylum approximately two months after he arrived in the united states in  the media precursor to the tiananmen square tragedy those problems did not come to a head until after he'd already been assigned as a crewman on a ship and the his former teacher informed the political crewmen and cancel his vacation his problems increased when the ship arrived in portland oregon and a church group approached him and asked him about the wages and working conditions of botched abortion he answered their questions the political commissar found out about that and punished him further this time for revealing state secrets you know in this life some cases we have this alternate findings in some ways credibility falls out because the i j a says it will even if he were credible in other words i don't think it's credible but even if he were i think her words were they can find that he is not the burden to show that any harm would come to him if he went back to china yes or so it seems that we ought to focus on that because let's just assume he's credible because the i j d n if it's yester are will focus on that it's actually somewhat unclear from the ids opinion  the substantial amount of country conditions evidence indicating that he would in fact be persecuted upon his return to china the that basis of this well founded fear is twofold he wrote this this essay critical of the chinese government which the government knows about in addition he revealed waging working conditions information which the chinese government considers to be a state secret and the chinese government also knows about his fears based on the fact that if you returns to china the government certainly has a reasonable opportunity to find out that he's returned find out about these things that he's done they will no doubt of background or at least have the it seems to me the record would probably support the notion that he would not be a favorite person or her term retired china but the question is whether the manner in which she would be just favored would imagine persecution within hours and otherwise if   one of the issues with the judge's opinion one of the things that the judge said is that she did not find that he would be persecuted or that anything would happen to him at all he returned to china not sure that she was probability that he will be persecuted in the future what the persecute what the petitioner has established is the fact of past harassment at the very least on the part of the killer that's like is there very tough standard that we have in addition to the country conditions reports which does it least touch on what happens to people and they are accused of revealing state secrets in china months this time i mean  complaint against the government of china that appears in pages three thirty six four seven of the administrative record talks about a variety of incidences including what happens  to people who are accused or revealing state secrets i believe that that particular report talks about other instances specifically people who've been accused of really wage information what has happened to them specifically upon their return and since we don't really have i didn't really comment on the fact that there is this evidence that you would be persecuted that just because that's not even in the opinion right one thing that's correct but the immigration she did as she noted the evidence and she said well this really isn't the same because these people have all filed formal complaints against the government and the petitioner in this case had not i believe that that is a distinction without a difference these people have filed formal complaints against the government and that is how the government found out that this person had done the things that they didn't want to do in this particular case the political commissar on board ships found out and the petitioners afraid that that information is gotten back to the government and that is how they found out so a formal complaint process just one way of the government finding out once they find out then that information is pretty clear what the government has done in the past of these people would you like to think the remaining time for rebuttal thank you are listen keeping track the chinese government on the boat within the political commissar and he's aware of both of these instances instances and in effect nothing really happens to him it's the extent of being persecuted or feeling for fear of persecution i wasn't in china whatever you've told me you can't even there's nothing at all to show all founded fear of persecution in this case and i think that's because when you take the two instances whatever happens it's it's unpleasant but no physical harm is definitely probability standard not a not a number of amount of harm standard so even then the question isn't whether some harm has no harm is going to come to him it's whether it's what's the likelihood that any harm is going to come to him so  because anything happened to your family because of this and he said well yes my sister was allowed to go to school but she's not allowed to go to school because i wrote a letter or not a lot of go to school because i talked to some missionaries she's not allowed to go to school support because he jumped ship which is not what he said i don't i mean this is the promise of science and yet i'm sure somebody could have written an opinion here that would have these problems but he just he said i can't see any harm one coming so i don't see any reference at all to disclosure or releasing of any statements i e state secret doesn't appear exactly in that report anywhere and that's what the judge was getting at you could possibly infer it as the petitioner would like one of the judge too but that didn't happen in this case let me do let me ask you about think the judge is giving a given a very ended giving a break to the petitioner tick by giving them voluntary departure or even having found him not credible and that's what she was splitting the baby or giving him something at the end of the hearing to perhaps make but that's why that first so it's not where in the first application he mentions an incident and then the second one he clears up any confusion about it and then that this court would have a problem with that if we found  more your honor because in his mind if he was restricted to the ship or not allowed to go ashore after that second incident because of what he said that's a pretty strong indication that he better put that down because the political commissar confronted him about it again that second incident so it wasn't like he made made a statement went ashore and never came back and only now he's finding out after talking to his attorney that well that was a state secret i revealed he knew it at the time because he was confronted by he was escorted questioned about it by the chinese commissar on the ship at the time it happened it's a strong indication that should have met been put in the first application itself you know that this case brings to mind the difficulties we have vitally the court asked me previously about evidence in the record regarding the possible handle with come to them the evidence appears generally in pages three ninety six to four hundred of the administrative records there's actually specific incident from a particular crew that appears at page three three hundred seven or three ninety seven and three ninety eight of the administrative records regarding what the chinese government does including imprisonment of some crew members for a period of twelve months government counsel raised a couple of issues before this course whynot is the issue of the two thousand and one reports and what it mentions or doesn't mention and i would i would feel that what it's also to the extent the judge's finding regarding petitions well founded fear is considered to be no evidence at all substantial evidence does not support that finding has clearly as evidence in the record