second legal spouse when stroup forced abortion and that the petitioner has suffered separate prosecution as well in fact he was detained for a whole day after he and by yelling at the fine family planning officers you know threats in detention may be evidence of past persecution but they are facts specific and we need to examine the cases separately for example violent confrontations vandalism this treatment accent or a we don't seem to have that here in fact ken was never physically abused or otherwise mistreated was he well he would mistreated  by the police officer because he was not supposed to be detained and he was detained for a full day over there and also the physical restraint is not a very complex pleasant experience as well well it seems to me the question and there's seems no doubt to me that this would not be sufficient where everything that happened to him together but be sufficient to be persecution ordinarily that is outside the family planning context in china i mean so the question is is the chinese family planning law of what's persecution the same or different than is generally example persecution for religious reasons this would i can tell you that i am sure that what happened to him would not be sufficient to be persecution all right so what i'm asking is was once all those emotional stress beaten up about family relatives as well because the government also accused him to be a rapist so the next you should have uncovered yet but i'm going to say he has a reasonable fear of future persecution as not in your briefs and october of this year china announced it was abandoning its thirty five year policy of limiting families to one child can this court take judicial notice of this announcement and of sorrow sure yes and if so what effect does that have on this case well that's about to discuss that as well well although the government is also to each family to have a second child hot ever he cannot change the past history through with the at the forced abortion already i mean you really cannot change the past person but if you can't change the future what is the likelihood of future persecution in light of this new policy well he allegedly slept then they would send him to police and so he made that rapist and then he will be put in jail for five years or so and this is the evidence and then also the girlfriend in fact could not have babies anymore and that's the second addend was at the page one one nine these are the evidence that i can glean so far and he went through the emotional wife and i believe that this was enough emotional trauma to him so when we talk about the persecution not only physical persecution ana we also talk about emotion persecution as well and he suffered enough that's like you very much even more coming past persecution doesn't chance failed to demonstrate future persecution especially because he did not experience any persecution after her forced abortion we have him traveling to europe coming back to china not seeking asylum there isn't that significant as well focus if you will in future persecution especially in light of the new china policy when you look at all events again or to borrow your words the total circumstances that the problem but i mean that's the relevance of the fact that there's a change in the policy because his whole argument previously was that if he goes back and has another child to help be persecuted but in fact it doesn't seem to be the case anymore creep on behalf of the attorney general the only issue before the court today is whether the record compels the conclusion the petitioner was subjected to past persecution as opposing counsel mentioned he was detained for one day he was threatened with rape charges if he didn't convince his girlfriend to obtain the abortion he was and then later on with his wife he was received physically restrained and threatened with rape charges before his wife agreed to go and have the abortion talk about the new policy was the new policy i think how does this affect this case if at all i think it undermines the likelihood of future persecution but i think what if we thought that the the i a e a was wrong about the past persecution we would simply reverse senator reid because there's a different standard that applies correctly with regard to whether the change in policy but it's for the for the board to decide in the first instance or you know the fact finder immigration judge to determine how how that applies in this specific site is job heartening to know whether there was passed persecution  right the what occurred in the shank case if you take out the forced sterilization or abortion wouldn't be persecution under our case law is that do you agree to that  what happened in japan which was determined to along with the forced sterilization or portion right to to be persecution wouldn't be persecution in general if there was a different  in other words of if you had somebody who was claiming religious or political pinioned persecution and said i was fined and i had was thrown out of school and whatever whatever happened there everything again that happened there that it doesn't seem like it seems impossible that that would rise to a level of persecution just as seem right to you but that seems right so therefore it's a different standard than that it's not that it's a different standard that's being apply but it's that  the recognition that the forced sterilization or abortion itself is part of the persecution is what changes in the in the catholic service agreed and that's what the attorney general population control case how is this different than zhang for example i mean it's maybe difference details but it doesn't seem to me to be you know in in or is it in kind of calibration worse or better well i would say that this differs in jane because he wasn't forced to pay a fine he was expelled from school well of course the details are just that's why i said that's the details but in terms of the calibration of how bad this w mean to me being told that unless you do something you're going to be charged with being a rapist and sent to prison for five years is pretty serious stuff maybe more serious anything to happen in jenks but nothing ever came of those threats and because he w past persecution because if he didn't do it if it was he had to go along with the forced abortion or this would have happened but this court only in very extreme cases are threats seriously enough to constitute persecution i know that and i'm trying to say no and right and basically never is a fine persecution ordinarily right outside of this context is there any context other than this one in which a fine would even be relevant to persecution in self but i the board actually has i think it's a matter of t l c a case dealing with economic persecution word right to find a soul or a science it's like you know you're just a complete destitution and you can't  get at is i understand you can say as compared to shag this particular thing didn't happen but in terms of seriousness overall how is this lesser th because i think you know each case turns on its own facts and it's case by case analysis and jane had the heavy fine and expelled from school in the attempt to rest on his wedding day and so those are just things that rose rose you know is more so severe than the circumstances in this case and i would just suggest that if if reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not this constitutes persecution then the record can compel the conclusion that it does and that the court should not disturb or cases before or after particulars of each case to determine if what those factors are one could argue the chang is not the case that's before us today yet had other factors that you've already outlined and summarize that arguably are more severe than what we have in the extreme cases where the threats are so menacing is because significant actual suffering or harm and he didn't testify that you know he it was just certainly enough that he had to go convince his girlfriend to go through with the abortion or his wife you know went through the abortion to avoid him being arrested for on rape charges but it doesn't the threats in themselves aren't severe enough to constitute persecution to him of persecution and that just would bring back the per se rule if the court were to accept that position here the board explicitly considered the abortions the rape charges and everything and reasonably concluded that the circumstances didn't rise level persecution and because the record doesn't compel a country conclusion i would urge the court to deny the petition thank you very much the women are about go ahead