simply didn't believe her there was several instances cited in my brief and also by the respondents three that there was some confusion that there were straightforward easy questions that weren't even addressed to the merits of the petition exception but i don't necessarily believe it's a political here now i have two arguments on from herself the first argument is that the right of abode had no permanence attached to it and i looked up all the cases of the respondents cited in a briefs and many of the case basically to speak that she that the right of abode is is qualified on certain happenstances one of them is that the person needs a pipe or discretionary permission to enter the country so there are some restrictions placed there we don't what how stringent those restrictions are to there's no evidence in the record in the band the petition has not tried to go back to the kingdom of tonga we also know that this right to abode and this is on page two hundred sixty two there's a paragraph twenty nine it says every task court issued under this part of the actual expire after five years from the date of its issues and may be renewed for further period of five years upon written application to the minister of i can read the next word police and upon meaning of a fee prescribe she had some sort of permanence after this temporary status expired now it is a little bit it is the record is a little bit and i think on the subject however i still believe there's enough to find that there no firmer settlement primarily because of the short duration secondly because it wasn't necessary because her basic definition almost the exception is that we work comes backwards by applying exception we don't even meet the beginning definition and there's no decision she was in organizations in china she has written articles here they have circulation of five thousand they are placed in chinese supermarkets there's photographs of the petitioner in the record protesting with fines for against chinese government from the chinese kong and through some tongan office in hong kong she applied to pay some steam which is not determinable from the records and received some sort of document she went into tonga and i believe once she got into tonga although it's unclear after a period of three four five days she received the actual physical path work and then at that point when she left to try and find out where was she would spend her remaining days and she was not going to be going back to china could she have remained in town arguably yes now she need another document arguably under that what's in the record right now yes she she could have remained in tonga however given the circumstances that happened to her i don't know if the courts did make her bear the brunt of whether she could or not she was in fear she was in the process of flight she had not settled there she had established no ties to having a lap at the least american consulate understands it to mean that in order to get back in she would have to apply for indication in the record that we know that it's not permanent python definitions we don't know whether it gave her the right to apply for residency we don't know whether it gave her the right to to own property whether i believe there's something in here that says something  eligibility but the fact of the matter is this woman is in flight she never settled there so i don't think necessarily that it should be held against her she isn't like she was there five days she probably doesn't i don't know what they speak in tongues and with assuming that she's from china doubt she speaks anything this week and she's not very familiar with the laws and she enters their briefly because it's the fastest way to do this various other problems i don't i don't see how it gets to that  final destination that at that point was unknown i don't think we can charge the titian or that it's proffered or that it's fearful of persecution to have an itinerary tattooed on her arm as to where she's going to end up she was essentially bouncing around doesn't say shall like the assigned statute where it takes away the discretion from the from the board of immigration appeals it would have to be remanded back to the board however there's no adverse factors here that would take away from the discretion there's no criminal or the time there comes in when coming primarily when there is no sort of official standstill it uses a factor one of many factors determine whether or not even though this person may not be banned you know in other cases  to look for her testimonies and i want twenty three twenty twenty four where she starts off saying that yes the friends told her that the chinese police are still looking for and then it gets down to the end of that little exchange and she says no they didn't tell me and i got an e mail my father later there were ten visits and another point there were fifteen i find it inconsistent that she gives different numbers he said that when she was pressed she said she didn't know the exact number of events of the book but when he failed to he didn't word for word summarize your testimony on with that testimony was interfering with that she started out saying that her friend told her that they were looking for and by the end of the