imputed political opinion however this case is primarily based on the next issue and that the immigration judge and the board their analysis on that issue is fundamentally flawed our position is that this court should be  board with appropriate orders on the basis of two main reasons the first main reason is that the immigration judge explicitly based her adverse credibility determination on impermissible speculation and conjecture our second argument is that the immigration judge and the board completely ignored evidence on the record that the petitioners can conclusive establish a well founded fear future persecution based on his family relationships now so to deal with the adverse credibility finding first i call your attention to page ten of the just decision and page ten the judge found that it was in her words very significant that the petitioners wife was able to operate an underground church at their home for a period of twenty years without indicates that unregistered groups are more likely to encounter difficulties when their membership was larger but is is the persecution based upon his family participation or is a based upon his participation at the time that he was and in china at the time of his arrest he was the artist made of the underground church is wife was conducting the secret meetings at their that they were able to conducted their secret meetings for a period of twenty years right to a period of twenty years and soon was mustered staggering to the judge however clear reading because the petitioner also testified that at most twice a month the the underground church was conducted at his home so there are five or six other members they were rotating they were mobile their mobile being smaller they were able to escape detection and remain secret so consequently our position is that the judges adverse credibility termination based on a finding that that this testimony regarding twenty year period was highly suspect in her words represents clear air and constitutes impermissible speculation and conjecture there is another instance in a decision that the judge had committed in permissible speculation conjecture if i can call your test page twelve of the judge's decision now there in g found in her words highly questionable that the police had all the sudden arrested the petitioner's wife in two thousand and six again it's puzzling that the i a would find the suspicious since the petitioner provided testimony that the mother and the daughter who were practicing in underground churches had started preaching outside of their church outside of their secret church to the people in their village they expose themselves now this is important because the international religious freedom report explicitly states that china has a regulatory ban on proselytizing so with this ban it's reasonable to conclude that the the petitioners wife's underground church became more visible more expose following her public preaching but it is that his wife is still in china incorrectly or the the wife is now she came in two thousand and of this case now between two of five and two thousand and sixteen that was she subject to persecution she claimed that she was however she was able to obtain a green card through council processing public preaching the state department report details that unregistered groups faced increased scrutiny from authorities when they gauged in discussions of legal or political activism therefore our position is that the judge's adverse credibility determination based on a finding that the petitioners testimony regarding this two thousand six a rest in her verse to be highly questionable  that represents clear error and an permissible was returned to the people's republic of china he would not only be singled out for for persecution individually but we can conclusively established that that there is a pattern and practice in china for persecution of individuals similarly situated as a petition of based on the details contained in the state department report this report explicitly notes that family members of activists rights defenders underestimate just religious figures were targeted for arbitrary arrest and devices monitored and would be target for arbitrary arrest and detention therefore we argue that it's highly likely that he would be singled out as the father of a united states a site lead and that is the petitioner didn't mischaracterize anything he just explained the circumstances under which his arrest occurred it was both because you know this dispute with the neighbor but also he suspected because the neighborhood informed the police that he you know that his wife and daughter participated in this underground hers he didn't miss characterize anything you just laid out the facts so how is the i g s finding of of their being a mis characterization supported by the record you're the first two times petitioner was asked why he was arrested and detained he said it's because my wife and daughter practiced christianity in it and i was church he makes no reference to his neighbor it's all good after he's confronted about  that it does not necessarily follow that he would be arrested as opposed to his wife and daughter if the issue was actually done absent christianity it's only that it is said it is oh and the day i was arrested i got into an altercation with my neighbor that morning and i think he tried to frame me because he wanted my property and his nephew worked for the police force is only after twice neglecting to mention that in that event mentions that additionally the immigration doesn't want it to other issues in the testimony religion and he's asked about this trend is testimony and he doesn't provide any cogent reasons or explanations for these discrepancies i thought that remind me that in terms of the timing of the filing of the application i thought it he simply was not a christian at the time of the events that gave rise to the application but by the time he was in the united states he had converted correct he he was not a christian follow sign up when he files asylum application you still not yet a christian and subsequent to th asylum interview he was baptized and became a christian in december of two thousand and seven ok so i'm just what are we supposed to infer from the from that's what sold it on the application so it's  unclear why he wrote on his asylum out cation that use christian that is just one of the it consistencies that the immigration judge highlighted when he's looking at when she is looking at the totality of the circumstances to base her credibility determination not was provided notice an opportunity to corroborate his testimony when the immigration judge on several occasions said i'm going to make an adverse credibility is in remission and if you want to another adverse credibility determination and if you would like you can provide additional testimony you can provide additional evidence petitioner fail to do so i fail to provide any explanation for not doing so including why his daughter was in the united states at the time because assistance afterwards there's no evidence of severe or long term injuries resulting from the tension but there's no evidence that he lost his job as a result of the detention all was because the petitioner was no longer allowed to practice christianity following detention that was the issue it wasn't detention itself and it wasn't a beating that what was the persecution in this case we don't have that issue the petitioner for twenty years having meetings in his house and has never been arrested has never had issues with police are authorities in china and yet the day that he has an altercation with his neighbor that is when he has an issue that's the reason immigration judge found it troubling that the explanation would be based on religion and not based on the altercation with the neighbor additionally white house make doesn't make perfect sense in light of the statements in the state department report that your opponent mentioned in other words there's there would be no reason for a small church of this sort to come to the attention of the authorities and the only reason petitioner even ran into any trouble with the police was because of this dispute with his neighbor and his neighbor used the  ongoing home church activities of his wife and daughter as a means of encouraging the police to take him into custody and to beat him you are much more relevant to the state the reports are everything that happened to the wife following two thousand two there's no indication that she was arrested for religious reasons and she lives there now imo the council said until two thousand and sixteen there's no evidence in the record that she was arrested i wife or daughter were ever interrogated or physically abused or what your response to your opponent's argument that your client was put on notice certainly that testimony from his daughter would be helpful in your client never provided any explanation for why underground church practitioner i think it's natural that the daughter had fear of being present in her case again talking about a case again in an adversarial setting a father that he is devoted to the interests of his daughter didn't want her to and moreover i just want to one thing here the judge never asked for the daughter to testify the judge did ask for the pastor's to testify but did not ask for the da to testify so that's curious that the judge would indicate at page less eleven of her decision that that this was a factor her credibility determination that the daughter never appeared and that i think he never states that the wife or daughter ever target a physical abuse or harm well that's just wrong because page five of the asylum application the sister does indicate that mistreatment occurred to his family members that's right there page five the declaration in the case that both his daughter and his wife used he incurred loss of freedom that's the word to use in declaration now that freedom was the freedom to practice their faith in one section church and we know that that the court has recently held in one of the sessions that this restriction these are strengths under freedom constitutes