mr mr little what's your participation here do new evidence that was discovered or presented to us the motion to reopen the motion to reopen was also dismissed or denied by the board and we are before the court but here today you are st and foremost i wanted to address the supreme extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture so there is no discretion and right then and there we believe that the board's dismissal of that alan a motion to reopen we in this particular case your honor the claims that were presented in the evidence that was presented by the petitioner were not fully analyzed and completely considered by the cli dissect the language that appears in the state department's country record in support of a denial of the claim various courts have held that even if a person has not suffered past persecution or rather past or tour or harm however if there is credible evidence that that person is going to be tortured in the future whether it's quite threat or otherwise that can come a mouth to granting that people we see that over and over we see it in reports coming from the state department for the russian federation for saudi arabia and for a multiple different countries particular we have a clearly minority christian  group that while they are a minority and the government has implemented steps to protect them there is no such protection there isn't at all i mean a kind of that protection over for the security and welfare  general terms which seems to be what you're doing and just look at what i can tell you your honor is in in this particular case the state department gives us a pretty good example and it's all record for example a lot of the minority groups such as the petitioner have disputed land disputes that have been taken from them by the government and the government has not adjudicated over one million of these disputes so it only goes to show you that on the one hand they're saying that they have  on that point and i think the certainly the immigration judge was very deferential to your client on credibility issues and i think there are if you were not reviewing the credibility issues i understand that but i would say that based on the record the presumption that the immigration judge reviewed the entire record if you are in this particular case and enlighten us route i will agree with you under the substantial evidence standard that the court discussed and  agree with that the status of the law as it is a way for what we look at the facts of the case when you look at the attire record of appeal and you look at the credibility that sense that was given to this particular petitioner and again it appears that the judge heavily on in his decision and what you read it quite clearly come from ours that this particular professional would be subject to torture if he were to return to but you know the theory i don't understand how you get there he didn't report the abuse we have no idea whether the protections the bengali government affords to people who have been physically attacked abused or even tortured by  arden's whether that would be would come in the play we have nothing in this record that i know i mean what are they and other than generalities than a state department report and you're out of what we do have and that's where the motion to reopen would have been helpful had it been granted and the case had been remanded because the letter that was received from the member of parliament and i think that's an issue that should have not been addressed by the court but rather the fortune of returned that evidence by remaining the case to the immigration judge to have it clearly record before it in this particular case the ordering aggression appeals just basically again what it to it's all fact finding saying wow you know what this saturday it says well why wasn't it able to be discovered why wasn't it presented earlier well in this particular case we have to look at the surrounding elements that this particular respond that opposition arias is faced with is in custody it's got limited time to present evidence and unfortunately when you are custody a life in a proper course of action would have been to grant the motion to reopen reminded to the board of the immigration judge in the lobby immigration judge to develop the record including that new evidence that he discovered and most importantly let's assume that that when it's one among many and it may have political purposes or other purposes then report exactly what is factually accurate in other words does he have to and does the immigration judge then have to go on a fact finding mission to look at other members of parliament and then survey all the members of parliament how much weight we would you have the immigration judge to give that you what i want in this particular case i again looking at the administrative regulations and presidential decisions that when you are on an order of supervision as ice places thousands of individuals on our supervisors or for ever there was no reason or immediacy for him to proceed in that case what actually urgent situation came up that he did opportunity for the government to either cooperate or even challenge that evidence but we cannot this credit in this regard just because a member of parliament has presented evidence that this is an ongoing problem it's no different than a whistleblower should we listen to a whistleblower not should we discredit him because he just so happened nobody else is whistleblowing in the this is not a whistleblower per se instance but your honor this is an instance where remember element is actually stepping  putting himself at risk and expressing a voice about the ongoing claims or harm that a lot of the questions are suffering in bangladesh and that's one of the reasons as a  the pavement and difficulty and challenges of problems with regard to religious intolerance are certainly in that the side that those problems don't equate to torture and then finally with regard to the necessarily the reopening regulation applies at least until changed by now to some comment rule making we did we did we agree we agree that we have you you have in this particular case let me be in terms of your tone your telling us to ignore the substance go for the procedure and i frankly don't like that choice well except it's a lot of questions of that in that regard what was the date of the remarks of the member of parliament now i mean i think we understand the issues with us unless there's something that comes up from mr hope for him and i i just want to your honor and just look and thank you for granting me leave for one minute i'll try to keep it below that made it i believe that my answer and i pod jives if i misunderstood judge clark your question however at the immigration level the standard is more likely than not in other words if it's more likely than not that the person would be tortured then cap has to be granted and i think that it goes to what you just look it was arguing is you know we can't disregard substance and substance in this and what i can't for the best of my recollection your honor that letter originated well after these proceedings in other words it wasn't something that originated you know years ago and just sold you know didn't make it into the record proceedings and lastly just a look at one of the questions that your os was believe it was yourself or judge clark you know why eleven years why did the government wait for eleven years to execute an order well it did what i can tell you based on felony which is consistently being at the top of their list for enforcement of these orders is probably because they feel that this particular case this person is not a danger and there is some credence in the background the local officers made the side that they're not going to pursue it is it also