than a year to apply for asylum if you can if your she can demonstrate change circumstances which materially affect his or her eligibility for asylum the purely legal question presented here is whether an alien exception now the immigration judge found that because mr starr dari had a preexisting risk of harm his conversion to christianity could not be considered a change circumstance and she did that without ever considering whether his conversion materially affected the risk that he faces the risk that he would suffer persecution if he's removed to the islamic republic of iran and she never considered whether his conversion places mr started are at risk of a dramatically more in this case is patently inconsistent with legislative history and it's patently inconsistent with other portions of the now when the bill that enact it the one year bar and the exceptional circumstance exception went to the conference committee bill had a one year bar but it had a good cause exception the conference committee altered the language and created these two exceptions for extraordinary circumstances and changed circumstances and thereafter senator  hatch took the lead in explaining the nature of that compromise and he said this is on september twenty seventh just three days before the bill is an act and he said that the changed circumstances exception was quote intended to government may have stepped up its persecution of people of the applicant's religious faith or political beliefs now that tells me that senator hatch who was in the conference committee and took the lead in explaining the compromise in his view somebody who had a preexisting risk of persecution was not barred from establishing changed circumstances if he could show that the government had somehow stepped up its persecution of individuals similarly situat me well i think everybody has to make a decision on their own you're on about when to file that application because actually filing an application for asylum is for many people it's a traumatic experience it's essentially divorcing yourself from your country  was deemed entirely credible there were no the immigration judge had nothing negative to say about his credibility she entirely accepted the fact that after remaining in the united states after having some leanings toward the catholic church he became much more involved instead of going to church you know four or five times a year he began going twice a week going through you know bible study classes and then he converted to christianity and the immigration stuff and judge accepted the sincerity of that conversion completely but you know going back to your question judge because i understand that really is the central question in the case is why would congress have permitted somebody to wait under these circumstances i mean from my perspective my reading of of judge  hat's what the law provides but you can only file an application under this exception if you can demonstrate that in fact there's been a change in circumstance and you don't know you can't predict the future you don't have a crystal ball so if you delay in filing there's a good chance you're going to be barred from establishing your eligibility but if something happens if there's some dramatic change that really excess or face the risk that you're facing then the act allows you to invoke the exception and apply and you know obviously but there's another aspect to this that i think the immigration judge overlooked and i think this business statutory provision relating to motions to reopen and i think the lead the plain language of that regular statutory provision is inconsistent with the says there shall be no time limit there shall be no time limit on filing a motion to reopen for purposes of seeking asylum where you can demonstrate that there's been a mature a material change in conditions in your homeland and that the evidence was previously unavailable that tells me that congress didn't intend to have a one year bar apply to persons who had a preexisting risk because of no change in the and on the other hand it's saying well that that remedy would be limited to pure questions of law or constitutional claims and those two things just simply can't be true because as the supreme court pointed out in  circuit agrees with this is well that he is not limited to pure questions of law that the judge sitting in haiti has can review the for the erroneous application of law to undisputed facts now here we have undisputed facts and now do so in the court of appeals they wouldn't be able to have two tiers of review but they still have the same scope but under ramadan they don't have the same scope the scope is more narrow and i think that invites a suspension clause issue that i think the court in ramadan overlooked thank you makes clear that after the passage of the real id act this court's jurisdiction to review any findings or questions of law is limited to cost to tional question or statutory construction questions what the destroyer seeks review of in this case or the factual determination is made by the immigration judge that a the asylum application was not filed within one year of his rival in the united states and or i think robert specifically addressed that question and said it's not a question of law it's essentially a factual determination our position would be to be extent that it's anything beyond a strictly factual finding made by circumstances which materially affect healing it's eligibility for style so to the extent that there's anything beyond a factual determination you know weighing the testimony at the at the removal proceeding it's purely discretionary well have to say well there is a legal question of all of this case and as characterized in the brief but legal question is did the immigration judge err by saying as a matter of law a religious conversion cannot prosecute a cha circumstances but that's not what the i d f said the i j a said looking at your testimony it looks like when you went to england originally in one thousand seventy five you started attending church in england your children were baptized in england your children attended religious schools you attended church when you moved to the united states you attended church with your friends to sacramento four to application and the critical inquiry is have there been changed circumstances to the extent that you didn't have a basis for a solid place before but now you do and the immigration judge said well looking at this testimony you have not demonstrated participated in san francisco after she moved here and after the normal one here filing requirement had expired that she had demonstrated change circumstances and the petitioner disagreed with the i g his conclusion then or the findings made by the i j a and then in the findings made by the i a e a that could fail to make that determination and so the court was really only addressing that factual scenario and saying that's really a factual determination made light immigration judge and it frankly was that will also withhold removal to the united kingdom because if it was conceivable in the united kingdom i started back to iraq but i think the immigration judge expected that this person clearly would be subjected to persecution and torture for move to iran that's true and it's that that we believe to be legally erroneous thank you