joint motion to reopen which they claimed they would entertain if my client got the i want thirty approved which he did then or arguments came about and i attempted to file a motion to reopen i was informed that the government now chose not to entertain the motion so for that reason we'll have to f status before he entered the united states though he's from a muslim family and in one thousand nine hundred three he became a christian in the united states which means that he's an apostate his entire family who also became a pastor and was a pastor in a local church in another part of nigeria they were doing crusading between the northern and the southern parts of nigeria whe at one point they were right at checkpoint and they were apprehended my client was beaten to the extent where he was sent to the hospital when he returned to the united nineteen ninety eight he had another conviction on which was three counts of mail fraud in violation of eighteen u s c section three hundred forty one and position of fifteen or more on authorized access serious crimes yes or because we're saying that he was given he circulus than five years his sentence was forty one months and you were saying that he the  the judge found the judge gave no weight to it consequently the judge gave no weight to other pieces of evidence that was submitted in the case  the judge the we where of the opinion that the i j and the government cherry picked parts of the evidence that was submitted for example not only was the newspaper  claim to be forty minutes which the government submitted but we do not believe that the government gave enough explanation as to how they look to the copy of the nigerian newspaper that was presented to the court from how they got to the library of congress come about was that document really from from a team from the nigerian newspaper or was it from an unreliable source the say that it compared with the newspaper that the library of congress document and then when that when the government offered the documents the right jay ask your clients counsel one of the she had any objection to the government's proffer and his lawyer replied i haven't had a chance to review in detail judge but no objections i would just like time to review or the i j a and then pay for two and a half months to review it and also an opportunity to go through a dresser and a final submission and there was never any anything said further about the us well at that time when we were in court respondent had requested the document from his country the document that he submitted the respondent had no idea why it would be different from the other evidence that the government to confront the evidence where did you make that and from the p r i i don't see that you made that argument front of the board of immigration appeals when you appeal from the r j to the b i can you help me i can't recall judge i would have to  go back to my brief to see what i actually said regarding to that issue but i remember stating in court that we had a problem with the chain of custody of the dog the authenticator also that argument here bri law he never finished the sentence at that point the witness responded well he wouldn't be in any danger then well the government has used that statement since to say that the fact that the judge did find my client credible he was found credible and if you was fun credible why weren't the other pieces of evidence in the file addressed it seems to me that  if he was found credible everything he stated was supported by substantial evidence in the record why wouldn't the court baron evaluate the evidence that we had that we had  limitation brings me to the agency it's not of the titian or stop occasion for withholding of removal the agency denied withholding of removal based on petitioners conviction for a particularly serious crime the determination that a particular conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime is eighty discretionary determination that involves the factual the weighing of the facts so this is outside of this course jurisdictional purview i will just quickly address petitioners claim that because he is from credible that the agency needs to accept his his statements about about about the crimes that he committed i will say two things first is that what the agency did was that it weighed all of that the evidence in the record and petitioners testimony was just one factor and so addressing whether or not they should have applied more weight to that one factor rather than the other the other evidence in the record is a factual question outside of jurisdictional purview i will also state that petitioner when he testified about his crime he didn't add more facts in order to explain why his time or his conviction wasn't particularly serious what he essentially nigeria in making that finding the agency credited petitioner's testimony but found that the evidence in the record didn't objective lee didn't show that he objected lee faces a probability of future torture the board found that the wanted ad that he based his entire claim on was fraudulent affidavit they did that on the basis of the library of congress is analysis and also the copy of the original newspaper that's provided by the library of congress such is the state department country report that is based on government entities from fighting documents now if petitioner had wanted to sue objects said that he would then need not be a witness who would be subject to cross examination if he did not explicitly say that can i ask you if this were a criminal case i mean evidence evidence was or for this evidence was offered and lawyers the lawyer for the defendants and i have no objection i just want an opportunity to review it the judge gives him two and a half months and then says and submit a submitted document then by the way don't you can address this issue in immigration court we often have affianced submitting statements and have them not submit to cross examination expert witnesses sometimes submit statements without cross examination you know people who are who are writing letters and i understand that there is no objection here and i was raised on appeal and and there was plenty of time but i mean on the basic question of the government's going to claim of documents fraudulent usually they produce a witness true that that was my experience  generally they were at least attempt to mask a different question getting back to the initial motions presented to tell you to stay proceedings you can gather the government's position is that it prefers it opposes the motion informed of this last week and at that point i contacted us c i s to get the documents and i contacted us and i asked you just whether they were planning on whether they would plan and under these circumstances to join a motion and i was told that they did not plan to i also discussed with petitioners counsel and at that point she told me that she had been surprised to find out that this i one thirty petition had been approved you know what it had been proved in two thousand and fifteen so it seemed to me i didn't go back and check it if there had been a change in position because i thought that this was new to petition as counsel as it was new to me so i didn't think that d h has had ever reviewed it before ok