micio immigration judge in frankly extremely short decision did i misuse application for lack of corroboration at the outset it's important to understand that the immigration judge found to miss you credible her testimony that she was detained on two different occasions for one week for practicing her religion that she was beaten on both occasions that she was left bruised on both occasions that testimony was found credible she also testified that since coming to the united states she has attended church on a regular basis and fears going back to china on account of her continued practice in her religion that testimony was found credible the immigration judge based his negative credibility determination with respect to past persecution primarily on the assertion that she presented quote no evidence to corroborate her injuries this finding completely belies the record miss you did present specific evidence to corroborate her injuries and that is in the form of her father's letter it's our position that the immigration judge did not consider her father's letter and the government argues that we gave no indication that the judge didn't consider a letter the letter and it should be presume that the judge considered the record as a whole in reaching his determination to the contrary there is sufficient indication that the judge didn't consider this a very important letter which corroborates her injuries that is both the explicit language of the judge's decision and the language omitted from the judge's decision the language omitted from the judge's decision is a mention of the letter there was done explicit language again i go back to page fifty four of the record was quote no evidence to corroborate her injuries that shows that the judge in fact did not consider this highly corroborative letter from her father and so when he says no evidence it's not that he said well i don't really believe the father it's not that he said you know there is a contradiction in the father's letter he just says no evidence and so that is the indication that the judge did not consider the the evidence of her past persecution of her harm and accordingly at the very least three men would be appropriate to see whether the agency would reach the scene conclusion had this letter begin been considered and this is not the only evidence corroborative evidence that was presented by mr yoo of what occurred in china the judge gave no weight whatsoever to the corroborating letter from the individual introduced you to to china he does say that he's not going to consider it because what he deems is some sort of inconsistency about the dates that miss and miss consider the father's letter that i think is sufficient for the for at the very least for remained for further consideration the the judge faults miss you for failing to present any arrest records or medical records or other evidence of the harm that she suffered but he doesn't explain why it would be reasonable as required by this court in diyala why it would be reasonable to expect such records where miss you specifically said that she was never charged with a crime it was not a formal arrest this was basically the police coming to an underground church and raiding it detaining them it's unfortunately as the background evidence documents in the record the chinese procedures do not comport with what would normally would occur where the police arrest a person in the united states where they would be documentation she never saw a judge she was never provided a lawyer this was basically the local police cracking down they took her in they held her they beat her and they released her there it she never said that there was any documentation she admitting that she never went to receive medical treatment but again her father talks about how when both times when he picked her up after from the police station that she had bruises all over her body and that she was extremely depressed for the weeks following so under these circumstances it's not been explained by the judge why it was reasonable under diyala to expect further corroboration if the judge identified the specific documents that exist that would be one thing but he never says these documents exist he just says i want these documents but he has to first identify where those documents exist and there's no indication whatsoever that they do exist and even should under the procedures documented in china that they would exist i would also note that the the immigration judge is finding with respect to past persecution isn't a single paragraph a single sentence actually where he says that she would just do two detentions for a week each time and beatings do not rise to the level of past persecution but again that does not consider the record as a she also testified that her church was closed down and she was denied the ability to practice a religion and finally i would like to turn to the issue of whether these claims were sufficiently exhausted by prior counsel to the board the government relies heavily on assertion that the issue of the father's letter was not exhausted to the board and that's actually not true what the law requires is that the issues and claims be exhausted the prior counsel in his brief specifically argued quote that miss you submitted substantial evidence to establish that she suffered past persecution and that she is a well founded fear future persecution and he further argues quote the i j a erroneous lee did not consider all of the evidence that's on page seventeen of the record in his brief the fact that undoubtedly the brief doesn't go into detail about the father's letter that is true but that is not what is required by this court of guilt for issue exhaustion the issue of the failure to consider the record as a whole consider the evidence as a whole and to sufficiently document her claim in corroborate her claim was raised the board was appraised of it the board addressed it and therefore it was sufficiently exhausted u her failure to adequately corroborate her claim with evidence that was reason and her failure to explain why such evidence was unavailable now the corroboration standard that applies here and is found in the i a e a provides that the agency can require an applicant even if she's found credible which she was here to provide corroborative evidence unless she doesn't have it and cannot obtain it now importantly to review this crime variations standard and for this court to overturn the agency's decision finding that she didn't sufficiently corroborate her claim this court would have to find that a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude that such evidence is unavailable  here the agency identified with the board and the immigration judge the type of evidence that it wanted from her that it just needed more evidence she was found credible yes but the immigration judge went into quite some detail sort of dismissing the rest of her corroborat evidence for different reasons and found that her while her evident while her testimony was credible it he needed more from her to believe that the strength of her christian practice of christianity such so and that's what appears to raise the concern is that this isn't an i j just lumped it all together or anything like that he spoke about every piece of evidence and talked about why he gave it weight or why he didn't give that way in that context why should we have a concern that this may have been either over look too or somehow we can't review it because we don't know what he thought about it the page fifty and then again at seventy five and seventy six of the record them and there's no reason to depart from here well remember would be futile here because i think that the agency would come to the same conclusion that it already did council will spend a lot of time arguing challenging the past persecution finding which isn't a finding that the board even addressed and in fact the board specifically said we're not going to address that past persecution finding the rising to the level of past persecution he also made a heavy point that the i j a was very specific that she didn't find any corroborative evidence of her injuries what she testified to was that she never went to the doctor after she was arrested and i think the second time i don't think she even really testified to having any injuries now if you even look at the father's letter what he said specifically after her first arrest was that she looked exhausted and had bruises on her body after her second arrest i think he said that she looked tired so i'm not sure that it's even very supportive of evidence of her injuries which is what he counsel seems to be so concerned about that that the i g made some sort of mistake by saying that she didn't provide any evidence of her injuries i don't know how relevant that is in general also given the fact that on review the board didn't adopt the past persecution finding the rising to the level of past persecution therefore what the board was really looking at and that's the decision that's before this court here is that she generally failed to corroborate her claim in total not specifically about her injuries if the past persecution finding isn't before this court that whatever her claim was didn't rise to level pas it's not so relevant that there was evidence or wasn't evidence of her injuries if that makes any sense you know i'd like to point out though as as your honor also mentioned th immigration judge required this additional corroborative evidence and so did the board of her arrests and detention etc and she could have provided that evidence she actually did admit at page one hundred eight of the record that there was evidence not necessarily of her arrest but of her affidavit a promise as she said that the affidavit of promises with the public security bureau in china that's the promise letter she signed saying she's never going to practice religion again she never made an effort to get that she never written effort to get it i witness testimony or affidavits from nine of the other people who were arrested within the first time and maybe five of the other people that were arrested for the for the second time and i think what's important to remember here is all along she argued to the board that it would be unreasonable for the judge it was unreasonable for the judge to ask her to submit such evidence and yet that's not the standard the standard is whether or not this evidence is there isn't available and reasonable are not makes no difference here and in fact she submitted other evidence from the chinese government or notarized birth certificate and notarize adoption certificate those two certificates come from the chinese government and they were dated july two thousand and twelve which is after she came to the united states and i'm not sure exactly the same thing as asking the chinese government for documentary evidence corroborating the claim of religious persecution and brutality  i agree with you and i'm not suggesting that it is what i'm saying is that she has submitted other evidence from the chinese government and as the board point out of its decision it addressed that specific argument that she made to the board that it would be reasonable for her to get evidence from her persecutors and it said well you don't have to do that you can get eyewitness reports from other people that would have rested with her and she didn't do that she didn't submit any affidavits from any of the other people that she went to this is there for an assumption  that she knew the others arrested i suppose maybe that the others wouldn't declined to provide the evidence for fear of further prosecution if they show up in an american proceeding  as witnesses against the chinese government i mean we're dealing with there you have a state that doesn't play by rules the same as the united states your honor i understand where you're going with that  don't think an affidavit from an eyewitness is so much to ask for as it stands she got a letter from her friend lou who was also a member of that church that that person wasn't arrested with her on either and it's not easy to get an affidavit from an inmate in a federal prison corroborating the claim of another inmate that a guard beat up the other inmate no it's easy i'm not saying that it is but what i'm saying though is that that's a completely different situation than what's here she was arrested with nine other people in china and they were all released and as counsel pointed out that was in and of there were never any charges brought against her so i think it would be a little bit different and like i said she did submit in a letter from her friend who is the person who used to go to church with her in china it would be the same thing seventy nine at two eighty that's a two thousand decision of this court that has been repeatedly affirmed so that is the standard and our argument is that the judge never made that explanation your honor was asking questions about whether or not it's reasonable to expect these this type of evidence whether we're going to centrally ask miss you to get this this promise that she signed to the police or whether it's reasonable to ask the to have her asked the persecutor for her proof that it the judge was expecting and regardless it's not for this court to guess whether it's reasonable it was for the immigration judge to explain why it was reasonable and that explanation wasn't done so we don't need to to to debate whether it was reasonable or unreasonable what matters is that it wasn't done below and so that's why every man is required and the second thing is that it was argued that we don't know whether it would really make a difference if the judge considered the father's letter again that is correct i don't know whether it would make a difference certainly this court can't guess but the rule says of this court shouldn't guess it's for the agency to make the determination in the first instance and so what we're asking for is a relatively limited relief which is  back to the agency to show that it first consider all the evidence so we can be sure that it did and to to provide an explanation if it is still going to deny why the agency believes it's reasonable to expect the scrub aeration and because the agency hasn't provided that