it is i believe that that is where the b i just get this but the ninth circuit has said in oregon is that for motions to reopen that all the immigration and peels to open the case now in the case back to the the i one thirty petition actually the jurisdiction over the i one thirty petition resides with the district director by requiring a clear convincing standard basically the looking at the underlying merits of the i one thirty to determine if it is in fact bonafide a matter of a large says that with an unapproved i one thirty under the rug of the regulations implementing the convention against torture were properly denied using this court standard of review which takes fifteen seconds to do that ok well they're just to remind the court of the standard of review here is that a reasonable adjudicator would have to compel a contrary conclusion  that means essentially what we're looking at is the only way the immigration judge could have come out that that she would be granted these different applications i think the answer based on the record evidence is a pretty compelling to country conditions she was a person so what about the marriage situation well with respect to the most real looking here at whether or not the board abuses discretion that's the standard and based on the evidence that was submitted with the most reopened now to be sure she did present evidence that showed that she had been married but what we're looking for is evidence that's probative of the reason for marriage because obviously you know when people are facing these types of removal situations the bonafied it's not the marriage yes exactly the how you prove that prove how what kind of the information or evidence would prove that all this contrasted with what was submitted well the regulations provide guidance as to what should be submitted you know you know to the department of homeland security the evidence that was resent here the only thing that really tells the board here is that they were in fact married and certainly even the petition that was actually submitted the i one thirty mixed up the dates of the actual date of the marriage so how could it be said that there is clear and convincing evidence of a strong underlying the marriage that was entered into and with respect to the motion to reconsider here there's no there was no specification of an error of fact of law in the board's determination that they had met those that the second we as the second most reopened because under the regulations there's only one most real that allowed in these types of proceedings i was still curious about he came in when she was twenty one years old yes been here eleven years but to the extent that her fears in that particular country were based on persecution that occurred over fourteen years ago now in terms of the immigration dealing with that particular case now it can be  like to point out that for finally motions to reopen it only has one opportunity to file that within that ninety two day period and they're also numerically bart generally clients at least my clients they're married for a short time we have to file this motion to reopen within that time frame they're not allowed to submit a dish and all evidence additionally many aliens who do not have the who are here illegally  be left up to the district raptor the c i s which has authority and expertise in this area rather than the board of immigration appeals additionally the board of immigration appeals just an appellate body to