[00:00:28] Speaker 02:
future persecution.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
factors and the whole record.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
As the agency did.

[00:01:09] Speaker 01:
As the agency took the facts that were provided and then found them to be unpersuasive and insufficient.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
Right, Judge, but only with respect of the future fear.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
They made absolutely no mention of credibility or corroboration.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
So at the very least, we have to take his testimony as factual or presumed for the purpose of

[00:01:46] Speaker 02:
honors at least on the surface we have to assume that he is credible because the board did not disturb that finding.

[00:02:24] Speaker 01:
In this case, whether the evidence compelled the agency to conclude that, yes, there was an objectively reasonable fear.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
And I think that's where the distinction becomes important.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
The fact that he tells us he's afraid for these reasons doesn't mean that the agency has to reach that conclusion.

[00:02:50] Speaker 02:
inconsistencies on the record that the court can take up and say the whole claim is not credible because they didn't disturb it.

[00:02:59] Speaker 02:
The judge highlighted some issues which I also addressed in my brief and the board did not address my contention, Your Honor, so if the court finds some issues with credibility, I would ask for a remand so it can be properly considered.

[00:03:24] Speaker 03:
I'm having trouble with the next step as well.

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
His parents are full-on gun practitioners.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
They have been imprisoned.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
There was nothing in the record to suggest that they're being persecuted.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
So how did the BIA air?

[00:03:37] Speaker 02:
Judge, well, they did address that.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
And as I argue in my brief, that the parents are not similarly situated.

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
They are similarly situated in some respect to honor, but he did explain that the parents

[00:05:21] Speaker 02:
have to establish a one-in-ten chance.

[00:05:24] Speaker 02:
And the fallen-gone persecution was clear in the record and is still ongoing to this day.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
And so... The dates, wasn't some of that stale, those letters?

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
So why didn't the BIA get to assess the staleness of some of that info?

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
The letters were not stale at the time they were filed, I believe, Your Honor.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
I mean, they might be stale relative to now, but I can look in the record

[00:06:15] Speaker 02:
And so that was our arguing, Your Honor, that the Chinese government demonstrated an individualized interest in the petition.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
Both letters say that the parents' letter especially seems key, Your Honor, because it talks about police accusing them of participating in an American Falun Gong, and it seems like they do have

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
them that's the letter from his wife the parents letter says that they come to his home and ask about a situation and want him to accept punishment is that 10% chance your honor I would argue it is because that's a very low level at the Ninth Circuit so based on that we would

[00:07:24] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Nancy Pham, on behalf of the Attorney General.

[00:07:28] Speaker 00:
Your Honors, this court should deny the petition for review because, as the judges have pointed out, the standard here is substantial evidence.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
And that standard supports the agency's determination that the petitioner failed to meet his burden for asylum and withholding of removal.

[00:07:50] Speaker 00:
And just to flesh out that standard,

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
have found as the agency did.

[00:08:06] Speaker 00:
Put in another way, granting this petition for review requires that every other reasonable fact finder have found the opposite way.

[00:08:46] Speaker 01:
that I understand why they're deciding to limit their review.

[00:09:19] Speaker 01:
that credibly, I guess it's an adverb, documentary evidence did not credibly establish the police had any specific interest in petitioning.

[00:09:30] Speaker 01:
Well, you heard the little debate we had earlier with your colleague.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
I got the same problem looking at the government.

[00:09:39] Speaker 01:
What does it mean when the BIA carves, seems to carve credibility out to what extent

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
is a factor to consider in weighing the evidence.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
How do we sort that out?

[00:09:58] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
So turning to the record, I understand the judge's concern, but in AR-59, essentially the IJ says, you know, I don't find the petitioner credible, but sort of taking his testimony and his documentary evidence as fact, we move on to the next part of the analysis.

[00:10:23] Speaker 00:
It is a little bit of a Leo dance, if you will, but basically in reviewing this case,

[00:11:38] Speaker 01:
make of the BIA's ruling because, you know, the wife's letter says many of those friends who practiced Falun Gong with you were still in jail.

[00:11:51] Speaker 01:
Police insisted that you were colluding with the American Falun Gong to destroy the country, and they want you to return immediately.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
and he essentially escaped out the back door.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
He testified that he didn't know why police were there.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
So, when we look at his actual testimony before the agency, there's nothing connecting, there's nothing to indicate that the police actually connected Petitioner with the practice of filing

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
match his testimony and that does not seem to be correct so why doesn't it have to go back so they can read the testimony correctly now maybe they'll set it side by side and still reach the same conclusion but if they misdescribe the testimony and pretend that it doesn't mention Falun Gong when it does why doesn't that go back

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
his wife, when he is provided the opportunity to explain what happened, he can never actually say that the police were targeting him, excuse me, that the police were targeting him due to his Falun Gong practice.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
The government would just highlight the importance of the statement he provided in support of his asylum application.

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
There he has the freedom to explain precisely what happened

[00:16:02] Speaker 00:
So the frame is always through his wife, but when he's able to, you know, in front of the IJ provide that testimony or, you know, in support of his asylum application, provide that statement, he never actually says that himself.

[00:17:56] Speaker 00:
actually is able to provide any evidence that the police targeted him because of his practice of felon gong.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
And in addition to that, there's other pieces of evidence in the record that further support that point.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
For instance, as Your Honor pointed out, his parents are practitioners of felon gong and have been unharmed.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
He was able to travel to Beijing to receive a visa.

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
He was able to leave the country

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
if they were a target.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
So there's a wealth of evidence to support the fact that the police were not actually targeting Petitioner because of his practice of Falun Gong, and that's what makes

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
says that he doesn't know why the police were there.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
So when you look at his own words in his asylum statement and in the testimony before the IJ, there's just insufficient evidence to show that his fear of future harm is objectively reasonable.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
And for those foregoing reasons, we would ask that the court deny this petition for review.

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
report and return to China

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
declined to do they could have done so.

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
and say, huh?

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
Well, yeah, we have a farmer.

[00:22:01] Speaker 01:
I mean, I'd be able to say it doesn't satisfy a corroboration requirement, but it sure doesn't save her

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
Do we know when she was detained?

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
firm it up, Your Honors.

[00:23:37] Speaker 02:
But, you know, with that said, the fact that it was many years ago, as I argued in the brief, both letters say that police are often looking for him.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
So the fact of the time passage, I would argue, is not so detrimental because the police, it actually kind of in his factor, because the police are still expressing interest in him after all these years.

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
So it seems like they have not given up on him.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
You're like a gooey holder where the police lost interest in the petitioner and stopped requiring him to report.

[00:24:15] Speaker 02:
Here, they're still looking for him after all these years, which I would argue rises to the level of 10%.