for fifteen minutes per side but because of the obvious extra burdens of the remote set up i'm going to give each cancer a couple of asking what your position on whether or not to be a properly considered their freight train task you know factors will get to that in a moment but at the outset what your position on whether it's a victim was a family member and where the family implored the court on to sort of you know let it in the criminal justice system to work and not the immigration court and yet asylum torture convention given that he the christian in front of syria well let me let me interrupt again i'm sorry you don't want to talk about and light about particularly serious crimes but obviously it and he's been in immigration custody not a pleasant experience since said two thousand and seventeen those are all equitable factors but i'm trying to see where you stand on the ticket literally serious crime can't do that and it's a particularly serious crime then it's only the convention against torture that would possibly provide relief for me am i correct on  really anybody returning to the country would be entitled to cat if you could if you could to really address specifically given that there's a regulation that requires consideration of all circumstances how is it then that this particular that that was not basic but it's not relevant all of the didn't use that word that's my word their reasoning was that it was the fact that the that temper protected status had been extended didn't make it more likely that your client would suffer from torture could you please speak to that them finding and the pick that were used in order to justify the expense of yet but were also present in the record evidence and brought wasn't really the argument if that was our the argument then you would have so i'm understanding your argument to be that that is there's a lot of reasons that temper protected status can be designated but in this particular case it looks like you're referring to really justify that that extension because of human rights violations and so what i'm asking you very specifically is why was the board rom when it ruled that that designation didn't make it more likely that your client would suffer torture this well we all know from evidence in the record in news reports that we can't help but see in the evenings that the regime has sometimes been using barrel bombs and nerve gas or other chemical weapons against civilian population in areas that were we rebel held areas so what is there any evidence that mr ritchie cho lives in one of those areas where rebel groups were active that make him more likely to be playing test you know the requirements of frank test that in order to find something is a particularly serious crime there are certain factors the court has to look at and those are set forth in front of it but the th circuit in now flora's vega but those those are the nature of the convictions circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction the type of se opinion that the immigration judge concluded i'm sorry if they are considering the nature of the conviction the underlying facts and circumstances the sentence imposed and whether the circumstance indicated that the respondent will be a danger to the community the immigration judge concluded that the responded had sustained a conviction for particularly serious crime given that if you would make your best argument for why the grant tesco factors particularly the sentence imposed was not considered by the to punish somebody based on the seriousness of their conviction is particular the particular statute under which he was convicted of what's called a wobbler under california law that means th hundred and thirty two dollars days in jail that's not a felony then to bring a pointed out in the brief that would actually be a class b misdemeanor under the federal  punishment that the individual receives and to not sort of the conclusion that something is particularly serious based on a handful of the reason i ask is that in other cases that i've seen i've never seen the suggestion that something send says a misdemeanor cannot still  circumstances and facts of the case and the and i j here made several references to the police report the sentence in the police report that appears at page three hundred and nine in the record says that the suspect your client pulled the victim out of bed and began punching her in the face approximately ten times with a close fist the suspect stomped on the victim's face twice with his bare feet causing the victim to lose consciousness so in other words strikes me as a of a very serious crime  and there it does mention in here in the noted that your client had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder one of the francesca's factors is whether he'll be a danger in the future and given that those facts and circumstances i just to do you have anything else on the record about whether your client has a history of that looks like they gave him lithium after this arrest is does he have a history of taking prescription drugs or complying with his prescriptions my counsel we're we're way over time i'm just asking very very specific question please if i mean we're interrupting forgive me for doing so but my very specific question is whether there's anything in the record that indicates that your client has complied with mental health medication i think we need to conclude petitioners argument now and even though we're way over time for planning purposes we will let petitioner have on one minute of  know not i'm not talking about the underlying crime i'm talking about the fact that the sentence was one would argue like that is time sure and suspension of supervise a year but not a full year certainly precedent that we have on that is felony but i'm not aware of it ok so this is far as you're aware supreme court precedent and th circuit precedent don't preclude a misdemeanor being considered a p s c let's ok thank you what about the cat issue because there's a vigorous argument made that he's entitled to cat relief in so far as the b s a did not assess persecution by the assad regime isis that wasn't addressed issue of torture by the assad regime as i understood the record that if that's true if that is so then why should we grant the p of the instant case we conclude that new evidence that the temporary t p s has been extended in syria is not material to respondents claims that so remember be warranted since a deterrent that determination scuse me since a determination does not tend to show that widespread torture is occurring and it struck me this struck me as a curious sentence because as you know t p s is extended for many reasons sometimes  flub sometimes is a hurricane but in this circumstances i think the record is quite clear was extended because of widespread huge human rights violations by the assad regime so how is it possible that this particular designation doesn't it is immaterial in red herring and too there are you know as you point out you know there for a number of reasons including in this case probably the you know  fluid that it's not possible to relocate i guess my only point is we are not reached out in the st instance and i think the cool question went to haiti if this wasn't considered why should we remain and for consideration of this circumstance to let me ask you a legal question sir and as a matter o of law when does the time stop in terms of our considering change country circumstances does a decision and that's the nature that's why we have an administrative record where it's not for us to be on the petition for review and int and say that and ask them to consider the evidence consider their requests to add the new