two the st issue before this court whether the court has jurisdiction to review the instant petition the nd issue before the court is whether the board of immigration appeals a their decision to state that mr cuomo had resettled in the republic of congo and was therefore ineligible for asylum we argue that jurisdiction is proper  this instance because the board of immigration appeals has affirmed a final order which was issued by the immigration judge and we also argue that the that the board of immigration appeal impact of that would be that it would not necessarily be a final order and he would no longer be able to move forward in this circumstance however we argue that your sister our circuit courts have held that although a decision was still outstanding in terms of voluntary departure for instance the split right there an appeal taken from the immigration judge on the removal water no your honor not there's no appeal pending before the i a e a now no your honor ok so what happens to that immigration judge immigration judge previously and it stated that his background was clear as well and then did it say is ordered removed except that he is order removed to central africa african republic it states that an administrative officer once they come to the conclusion that an alien is either deportable or makes a decision that an alien should be deported  decision becomes final once the board of immigration appeals affirms that and in this instance the board of immigration appeals affirmed that decision of the immigration the immigration judge's decision which was dated july knew that the final we as the st one that's on appeal to us was subject to change on the remain and it was a change and there was a now the final order was entered by the record pretty important yes your honor i have i believe we did not appeal that but we still argue that in terms of the decision i had some i guess what we did in chambers as we tried to find out what happened and apparently the i j a issued a new order on october rd two thousand and eight of surprised you don't know that apologies are honor but in this instance we would argue that that still doesn't change this circumstance only because the the order your keep saying is final yes your honor you're just saying it's final the question is before us is whether it is final yes sir on and the question is raised because the b i a didn't just issue  order dismissal it also reminded understand didn't it yes it did and it reminded under a circumstance where it could have changed the finality of the order it entered yes your honor however  a does we were and argue that despite that information be that you would still that this court would still have jurisdiction to hear the instant seems more efficient to wait until the b s a resolves the nd appeal and take all the issues up in one here yes your honor i i do understand your position and we still right count or whatever and sent it back and it's still a litigation orders up for grabs the removal or i understand what you're saying your honor and so you can go ahead i  terms of resettlement in terms of asylum if an alien is found to have firmly resettled they are not eligible for asylum and an alienist found to have yes he did but his facts are very similar to the facts in c young that's why he was not me so sure he wasn't resettled because he was consistently receiving threats despite the was violating the law they didn't think he was but it's call us everybody yes your honor however the fact still remains that he was threatened because of his political opinion and we would argue that regardless of where he went in the republic of congo he was threatened because of his political opinion he was never offered permanent residence in a republican coming if that country has a twelve years has not been kicked out for any of this you think he's not firmly settled i mean it's pretty it was not a safe haven for him there was and attacked the fact that she was consistently threatened it was not a safe haven for him and he has not firmly resettled because of that your honor he was still persecuted in that country he was still being threatened for his political opinion and because of that we argued that this court should find that the board of immigration appeals has errant in their decision that he has resettled firmly resettled in the republic of congo honor and in terms of the evidence that you would consider you would consider the length of time that he has spent in the country employment opportunities that he has judge and to present it on pill to the board at each level he was found ineligible for asylum the issues before the court or whether the court lacks jurisdiction in this matter given the board's remand for further proceedings and ripe for review given the potential of developments on remand so this is a rematch and for the same issue that is are you eligible for withholding of removal so the outcome of those proceedings directly bears on the matter that would be before the court i think the counsel for the petitioners suggestion it probably is a foregone conclusion that there's going to be an order up but that isn't necessarily true your honor even if that could be the case here so there's board precedent a case cited in the brief matter of m d a which says when the immigration judge requires jurisdiction of the for voluntary departure you know it doesn't address whether or not you will be removed but how right whether you'll go voluntarily or removed just even that's or might be open to receiving new evidence so why would that's correct order to if you want to seek review of the board's earlier determination well i don't want to make this more complicated than it is because it seems to me and byron it rests on a very simple foundation which is that the statute requires a final order removal and there's no final order removal where there's been a remain for further proceedings further proceedings of which may or may not alter the earlier you know order withholding removal so it's just i mean to me it's just straightforward yes refer to a fear of persecution as you negating a funny farm where the inquiry infirm or settlement is not just generally are you safe it's has there been an offer or is resettlement available saying no when we look at the exceptions we look at what restrictions the government applied to your residency not rd parties and it was exclusively rd parties here who allegedly threatened the petitioner not what to do in terms of reaching out to the police and he just went into hiding he was strict did his movements and which further supports the fact that he fits into the  nd exception for a firmer settlement in terms of firmer settlement second exception to it comes up when an individual has settled in a foreign country individual and basically turning a blind eye to the threats that he was directing the petitioner and for that reason we would say that this has come from the government france he had moved throughout france multiple times because of threats and the th circuit found that he had not firmly resettled because of the threats that he was receiving and because france was not a haven for him and we argue that the same situation exists for the petitioner in in this circumstance  and then further know and just in terms of whether or not the case has been remanded has been appealed to the board similar to opposing counsel we were unaware that that had occurred and so i just wanted to put that on the record and if my client did not mention that no he did not and so i