she's a registered nurse and just an emergency hospital check mission today she has an eight year old united states citizen daughter following a rate she's married to united states citizen with whom she has a four year old son the visa petition filed by her husband she suffered psychological trauma extensive bleeding in consciousness premature childbirth she was subject to a type two female genital mutilation known as g m this includes removal of the cliff let me and i'm a be a menorah damage straight that she would be tortured if she would not have this particular procedure again what evidence is in a record that she would be tortured if she returned to nigeria well there there is against her will that will be imposed permanent and beatings and a part of her body i take it from your answer there is no evidence that she herself would be tortured if she returned to nigeria your argument is that the only torture s understandable that the fact that she suffered this mutilation earlier could have ongoing continuing consequences were she to be returned to that same country and we have a procedural issue that we need to get over several procedural issues but the ninety day deadline issue would you respond to that yes for the really funny the torture convention there is not  with her she was the woman who obviously does not feel comfortable talking about this problem with a male attorney but nonetheless should have asked some questions when she went to new counsel in one thousand nine hundred a female the government taking action as opposed to and being in the custody and control of the government which isn't the standard under the convention against torture so i'm wondering this from this court's level why we wouldn't close to actual concrete evidence that something is about to happen to a particular person on the other hand there's more to it than that and that's th back for that particular case is that the wrong standard was applied would really be if you like the law is required to do that how do we know on what basis the board made that decision i mean if it was a district court case we have different rules for that but on the board the supreme court spanked is pretty good on making new terminations of what the board would do when the board is the person who asked to interpret statutes and that we should send it back to the board for a determination an opinion i suppose the court was very happy with the case with the decision the ni in that case still in all the cases here how can we how can we make that decision now and distinguished from court cases well i think you're talking about ventura the differen and that it's not necessarily applying the proper standard regardless of which standard you apply the fact remains both the board and the i j a found that this particular alley has already undergone the procedure so whether the standard applied is different if that the torture claim there's not going to happen again it can't happen again it's impossible for it to happen again the only person that may happen is the daughter and israel of the daughters of the u s and she doesn't have to leave this country sauce for the gander in other words there are cases where it's clear to us when we look at the facts and then we look at the correct standard of law and the petition and we get relief and the supreme court said no you can't make that decision even though it will be the same decision after goes back to the v a that's not yours to make on the court of appeals so this is just the flip side which is you have the standard and we might be able to make a decision in this case it would be a decision favorable of the government to stand against government so i'm not sure that there that we can make a distinction is the difficulty in other words we've got to take the supreme court at its word on these kind of things don't we i certainly agree w various variations that apply sometimes harshly but you're enforcing them for literally millions of people we do have an unusual situation here with the department being minimal in this case because before the court issues its opinion your honor if the court issued a temporary order directing us to consider it we certainly would but the problem is with we agree to mediation in one case with the millions of aliens we have to deal with marriage but personal experience of just sitting on this corner anybody who's touched the immigration arena knows that marriage is sometimes abused and the courts are available to take action when it is of this was thank you will give  do we take our obligations under the torch of her mentions seriously or not that i think in that issue here in the way that the board handled this case it was a single board member decision made in september two thousand and two w if we're going to take obligation to the courts conventions there is when we finally have gotten it's a contradiction into the decision and instant case i think we need clarification on what definitions were applied and at least