court my name is douglas nelson on behalf of the petitioner i came prepared today to argue two things in this case first as to whether this court should grant my motion to hold the case in abeyance while the board of immigration appeals decided my enough to call me and tell me that my motion to reopen before the board has been denied i have not seen that decision but i quite frankly am a little dismayed as the board's denial of the motion to reopen when this of status she is married to a us citizen she entered the country lawfully she has no criminal record should the us citizen child and i just learned within the last week that if she is expecting a information and overcome the omissions first the applicant justified that she thought she could explain her case when a second she testified that she only wrote about her personal experiences or her personal history and should apologize for not making the changes sooner but most importantly in the third aspect is that she wants her explanation or the new  that it's completely plausible with the rest of the claim and it should not be considered a material inconsistency but rather an admission second the judge denied in large part because he said there's no indication that eritrean government officials knew of my client's involvement and yell f well this is another typical problem in asylum claims we don't have the luxury of bringing the persecutor to the stand and having that person testify for the motives and reasons for persecuting the applicant but we can infer that the government knew of her involvement by the following facts first her family's involvement in e l second she passed out flyers supporting the d l s third she collected contributions from the villages in support of the l f she testified that her sister was persecuted  imprisoned and harmed what she believes under what she believes was a case of mistaken identity that the government was in fact after my client but they mistakenly took the sister moreover the respondent left the country for eleven or twelve years and upon return for a short span of two months she was mediately had the feeling that she was being surveilled she met with other members of the left and them those two members of the who my client associated with her visit now these persons in the mountains celsus being government officials but i think it's reasonable to infer that they were who else would keep tabs on the sponsor for eleven or twelve years other than the government a government that is known and has been proven by substantial evidence in the record that persecutes persons of the opposition now whether is extraordinary about this case in response favre is  are automatically surveilled considered traitors and imprisoned now those facts alone are sufficient to find that there's a ten percent chance or more that the respondent would be prosecuted on return and is my understanding then out of the ninth circuit a chance of a little of ten percent is sufficient to prove a well founded fear of future persecution you'll have to forgive me because i don't have a clock facts that were not in evidence and he wished to conjecture on portions of the testimony that were completely ancillary to the claim for example he said that the saudis family that was employing the petitioner pain in the extensive airfare to bring her to the united states any question why would the family just abandon her after she got there well the term expensive is a relative term and therefore from saudi arabia to las vegas might be two different versions of testimony as to whether or not she even participated in email last activities during her eleven years in saudi arabia while she was working as a housekeeper and director direct examination where she was working and cross examination she proceeded to disavow that prior testimony and told the immigration court that she told the family that she was just visiting friends on the her days off when she had otherwise previously explained that she was them participating that in the second part of that immigration that that the immigration judges adverse credibility finding was the information not being included in an asylum application and then testimony later coming about that however i think this is a very critical aspect of the immigration judges adverse credibility finding because the petition adjustment of status says it is mentioned that she is seeking a son based on one of those two rounds so i've been running the government opposition to our motion to reopen they opposed it for the same reasons that they are opposing this appeal they believe that certainly hope that's not my choice i think it's interesting that the government supports what they've done in this case when you consider that if she is denied relief she will have to go back to the country where she fears persecution in order to obtain a visa an immigrant visa to return then if the government doesn't do the work in this united states and doesn't process or application for adjustment of status here then it falls upon the department of state to do so there certainly is no savings by compelling this woman to leave the country or possibly abandon her spouse for six months or longer and forcing her to go back to her country to apply for an event this case can be rafted quite simple the by finding the immigration judge we were going to judge the decision was wrong and that we have provided substantial evidence proving that she is deserving of a fine thank you very much