normal time and motion time in numerical limitations on motions trio and it explicitly states that so long as the motion is filed by june twenty first one thousand nine hundred nine which this motion was  be tortured if he returns it would seem to me that that embraces him saying this is the regime that's in power and they torture folks like me so hearing here the initiative the evidence and the burden to aggressive risk under the regime of power is is all land mines two responses to that first the burden is always on the applicant for asylum context of motion to reopen to send continuous and ongoing updates during the years and years that the board takes to adjudicate the motion and the question of then become oh here's another news article did we send it in this week well we sent some in two months ago it was should wait a few more weeks but what if the board rules this week we'd better send it in and see how this mountain of paperwork goes to the government the government may feel obligated to reply it's a never ending cycle and the board when it's prepared to rule in the case can simply send a letter hi country conditions have changed because the government have changed has changed you have thirty days to respond send us every single thing you think is appropriate and will rule on it otherwise you end up with the never ending rather circular flow of paper back and forth between the petitioner and the government and the government's continually tied up in responding petitioners continually sending in new information regarding country conditions so the courts suppose that at the time a person makes his initial application regime a is in power at the time he makes its motion to reopen regime b s and power are you saying that he can make a regime he can make this motion to reopen addressing the risk of torture under the regime even though it's not in power at the time he makes both and it would be relevant but he obviously should address the restaurant a regime b if regime b is in power at the time the motion reopen and actually for the first several years of the mosharraf regime information was difficult to come by i cited a front page newspaper article an issue just a few weeks before the board's decision as an example of the musharraf's regimes continuing the pakistani tradition of assaulting and breaking up the activities and detaining the members of opposition political parties moreover and i'm not citing this as part of the record but the most recent country report the two thousand and two country report states that in november of last year hundreds of in cuban members petitioners party were detained by the most harassed government and notice that the use of torture among police continues to be widespread now let me ask you about another phase of the case that   or in the decision there's a distinction between persecution and torture and the distinction between both of those and discrimination declaration it states that he was beaten to the point of semi consciousness while being interrogated while in police detention and that's exactly in line with the regulations describing torture it's to elicit information to co someone to drop a course of action they've been undertaking or her discrimination of any kind and it's clear that he was under interrogation and while the beatings were taken place the beatings were severe enough that he he went into a state of semi consciousness and they continued throughout the duration of his detention which went on for a week on the first occasion and he was again detained a substantial period of time and beaten while under interrogation and during his second detention so i would submit that those those beatings while under interrogation during a prolonged period of that detention coincided with the facts described and also here which were found to rise to the level of torture moreover the board beyond airing as a matter of law and ignoring and failing to apply they also are a decision  r were overruled because they interpreted the term acquiescence as requiring the government's actual knowledge and willful acceptance of torture and the junk panel held that the congressional intent was to require the government awareness that torture was taking place rather than its its actual knowledge plus willful exceptions so they squarely overruled the case cited by the board here and it's material in that on page eighty two of the record among other places there's clear evidence that the government has provided support to the m q m h in order to permit the in human nature to carry out attacks abductions and torture of the m q m a a larger faction which is probably causing more trouble say to the reference that was made in the apple least three the board reasonably relied upon the united states senate report regarding ratification of the convention against torture which clearly articulated that demonstrators to get them to disperse it's inappropriate but it doesn't rise to the level tortured beating someone while under interrogation during a prolonged detention is rises above the level of police brutality sense to me  you're talking about the motivation aspect of torture to get somebody to talk but this is about the severity aspect of torture right and i would say that it depends on the context police brutality is a rather vague term and again could include police wading into a crowd of demonstrators and hitting them with the tongs in order to force them to get to their feet and run and it's quite a bit different from having somebody in your custody completely under your control and deliberately applying force to them during an interrogation to force them to answer questions the context is completely different the purpose is different and the level of control over the victim is much higher in a custody context the convention against torture then would apply to all countries where the police to be prisoners and if they beat them i would say if they beat  then you're saying it's possible for it to be a country where the police routinely beat prisoners to get them to confess but it does not rise to the level of torture that's supposed to be an individualized determination you are and that's  sent an awful lot of countries conceivably the majority of them do that and it makes the convention against torture all whole lot bigger open door then that quotation suggests the senate meant it to be and and you don't want to talk about that now giving it two chances to give you one more your honor the senate and the bo immigration appeals and this court and its torture convention cases have examined the scope of the protection of able under the torture convention and it does extend to people who are beaten severely enough for purposes of interrogation or punishment beating is not an appropriate lawful sanction and the senate made that clear in its ratification of this treaty so the chancery question is yes those people should and do under the law have the opportunity to apply for relief of the convention against torture it doesn't mean that every case is going to be granted it doesn't mean they're entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge and a determination as to whether under their individualized circumstances the treatment they experienced in the past in the treatment they fear in the future rises to the level where it's inappropriate but we're not talking about a yes or a nine hundred eighty three case these people in four countries we're talking about are right to stay in the u s despite a lot getting in legally and this country has made a determination that these people will be under an order of removal and that as soon as conditions improve in their home country or as soon as we locate another country that they can safely reside and they'll be shipped out that's the minimal protection provided by law and that's appropriate thank you counsel thank you and the court then to go on to say that in any event the current country condition information he had supplied was of dubious value because of the change in regimes that decision after hearing after the those it wasn't for truth number to be even if it was the regime is gone could you help me on issue number one that it wasn't torture how do you distinguish police beating people up being with a second lecture cable and as i said there was a reference to monstrosity so it's not clear what that refers to again the issue is whether the board abused its discretion in drawing a line between this case and after here and saying that  talking about correct correct but again in this case if you look at the facts in this case he was on he was detained for one week and then one occasion and four years later and was detained for two weeks and during that time he was roughed up by the by the severe inhuman treatment as the regulation defiance torture and there's no evidence for that i mean if you can give me any more help here's the thing there are very few countries that i would really care to be arrested and put in custody and maybe england but judging from what some of the higher a prisoner say about their treatment if if their allegations are are right i don't know about engl i don't know where it want to be arrested and in custody it sounds from the stories you read like it's bad all over but i don't have good really clear language to grow the line between police beating people up and torture and i'm pretty confident that congress didn't mean to open the door to everybody from countries where police beat people up it's just too many people too many countries doesn't seem very likely so give me what the formula is if you can and some authority well i think that is what the board is trying to work out to these cases i mean these are all fairly it's fairly new issues the torture issue and the board is trying to work it out and it's up to the attorney general through the board so to come up with a formula as of now it's the board decided that this level of treatment and this evidence and then ben that the beatings he had were particularly severe but there's no evidence of that there's no he didn't say he was hospitalized after he didn't prove really present much detail about the beatings of what happened to him during the beatings with any without any further detail other than the fact that he was beaten up while in custody that turning general to the board  happen through the case to the board decisions and that's what they're working on and this case you do not the four concluded does not rise to the level of torture for a lot of the reasons you know that you pointed out earlier s was any time reserved