removal come in the form of an order of removal akin to a final judgment that would be entered by a district court if this were a civil case in front of the united states district   ordinarily we are case law is pretty clear on the in a normal civil case that a court of appeals cannot hear an appeal and lest a final order has been entered in the district court the final order is generally the judgment that the district court directs the clerk to enter which signifies that the district court has finished with the case and then a notice of appeal is filed and it comes to  the analogy here would be that in order to perfect an appeal from an immigration judges ruling there must be a final order of removal that is entered and then presumably another order that withholds execution of that removal which and in the immigrations that it is called withholding of removal and my question is in the absence of such an order of removal do we have jurisdiction from which an petitioner may us cited by the government it's clear that there's a mistake that is to say under the new rule book from the b i hey you're going to have an order withholding removal you also have to enter an order removing so that if for some reason something happens and them th his party want to elections in his country while he was in the us there was that violent coup in his country that threw his party out of power when the i g in this case stated i find the petition has not met his statutory burden he was not determining whether of changed circumstances assuming that we have addressed action under the robin ramadan line basis why should we reverse the i j a n b a on the question of whether or not we have changed because when my client left his country his party on which he had what she was very politically active and had been attacked on several occasions which justified the granting of withholding of removing his party was in power while he was here in a violent who his party was thrown out of power that made a complete difference in his need for protection and how long after the change of position so that his party was thrown out of power how long after that changed and fissions now you within a year of the change of conditions but that's not quite how this actually threaten the stats is written if there are change conditions there has to be an application made within a reasonable time now unfortunately for all of us or maybe fortunately it is not a specific time so we got a fumble around with what reasonable might mean was there also this way a sliding scale of change conditions but it's just was immediately apparent to him upon the change of regime the problems that would be created or is amount is there something on the record that says well wasn't until six months later that he realized how bad things were going to become under the new regime what's the  that quite after the brother's house was burned down his father said you really can't come home it's too dangerous you need to do something and so that's why he started trying to investigate what he could do to change the status mistake and even up until the time thing we're we're a little over time we'll make sure you get a chance to respond  where the i j a had not done it and we said no the board doesn't have the power to do that so to get back to the questions that judge fletcher was asking it seems to me that when the board realized that a mistake had been made it there is no valid final order of removal and consequently no jurisdiction in this court to review that legal nullity so if we don't have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal that the board enters because that's a legal knowledge t v how can we have jurisdiction to review a decision of the immigration judge who never issued an order of removal i don't think the court fiji is persecuted by a nationalist party then he comes to the us and when he comes here his party is dominant in fiji but while he's here there's a coup in fiji and the party that persecuted him takes over you know a lot why shouldn't that be changed circumstance ninety five to nine hundred ninety eight what about two when he left based on his political opinion he was an ethnic jean who was assaulted by nationalists i put the match nose at the time he came here the nationalists were out and the party that he had based on what the regulation says you are you're correct but the entire record the seven hundred pages in their immigration judge so there's been no material change and if one reads the record water isn't priscu the lead of which is now in life in prison and there has been a change and of election which was free and fair according to u s state department there's been no persecution of ethnic for genes based on political opinion everything in the