act couple things about how the clocks run on this case people start and how argument can be divided at first when the digits go down and it goes from green to yellow to read on math and clock on the podiums the numbers keep changing but it's not telling you how much time you have left once the light is read the clock changes in a tells you how far over time you've gone like since the questions are petering out and save the rest of your time for rebuttal and just do it as you like the tricky part here is dividing time you have multiple attorneys on the same side happens is the judge says alter questions of the first turn each stand up and the subsequent attorneys don't get a chance to be hurt and we try to squeeze in a few seconds form and if ethnic chinese christian family from indonesia they have suffered from mental illness as family members the father is a political cartoonist who is critical of the indonesian government we have two points we'd like to cover with you today i seven forty of the administrative record hundred testifies with direct evidence that the newspaper was closed because it was publishing political cartoons critical of the government and it was at the start of government subsequent government figures and continues to publish cartoons critical of government figures in indonesia j fail to consider the record on the whole at the initial asylum hearing and that the da gave wholly inadequate treatment of the evidence submitted but the motion to reopen it's well established that an i j is required to consider the record in it in its entirety in an asylum but under that's not a changing country conditions it's a change in personal conditions matter for growth and reopen the evidence that change conditions that have to do with the personal conditions of the petitioners w noted as an anti chinese figure and a christian figure anti democratic figure is and was elected vice president made statements such as chinese should consider the choice between being looted and mobbed or being discriminated against during his two thousand and four election and this or can i turn to the mental illness yes i thought i read in the record that your client what it records would require  that for some period of time just medicine to treat it but it's not right and that's that's the evidence that's before the immigration judge now in order for us to reverse we must find that substantial evidence com radical and but that he's never left hendra hundreds not being shared he's never left hendra sort of finished with them when you're done and treatment is over it's been a constant monitoring doesn't need medication has to condition improves you feel safe in the country and the symptoms of this post traumatic stress syndrome get high and i'm happy with the declaration is that you're making the argument but the declaration asylum hearing is very you would find that testimony that talks about that he says he fears question of hundred mental state upon return because he won't be able to be monitored i don't quite understand how that fits into the legal theory  in order to get asylum it's not enough well yes just to show a well founded fear of persecution less capable is not the same as persecution certainly not the problem is that mental illness in indonesia is considered a spiritual defect and personally i don't know but on that score you have to show some treatment prior to the two thousand and four two thousand and five national disasters that's just not possible anymore and that's you know you do what you carry shortfalls this is even worse now but that to me doesn't indicate you know someone deliberately government action well i think that the treatment that those people do receive when they come in however for such things as being locked in public starts being subjected to horizontal treatment whether that's always been true great but there might have been pockets where you know there were psychiatry and psychologists at the university in jakarta for example who after the ninety eight ri episodes i don't recall the brief focusing on persecution of a social group i think i think what made most sense to us is the fact that we've got this chinese christian family down the street just getting off the plane from america they walk in and they've got these two people who are suffering from mental illness this is not good anybody with an almost rather be in the united states of indonesia anybody without an illness would probably rather be in the united states in indonesia but i don't understand where the theory of persecution of the social group of the mentally ill is argued until today and i don't understand where there's a change in country conditions that would allow the late motion to reopen it looks as though for that matter people with a mental illness changes radically in the united states every ten or twenty years i'm just having trouble putting together the theory i think where you can hang your hat is the idea that the mentally ill are viewed as spiritually tainted and that represents a risk of individual ais harm for these questions they're not just going to be the ethnic chinese christian family down the street they're going to be just spiritually tainted christians down the street who are the real problem with the case the fact that the law changed under law long and initially the thrust of the petitioners application was we are chinese chris from indonesia and before we took well you would have been pretty confident that you could win on that argument but now the problem is that one of the invading ruling the chinese christian and i'm just a member of this group doesn't quite get you there without particularized threats so it seems to me your theory has shifted to a cumulative theory that well it's that plus this mental illness the i j t to borrow language from justice try the i j mr dinosaur in the haystack and hendrik testified directly that his newspaper was closed because they were publishing political dissident cartoons and that right there is  well he he does cartoons and his newspaper or publication was put out of business although i just found it was more economic than political persecution well and we do with that i testified again on page seven forty his give direct testimony that the reason that the newspaper was closed was because they were publishing cartoons critical of the government he also testified that he even if that's true and there's evidence that supports the steps of the courthouse to show signs of torture for people who are rallying at peace for lao least i think there's a real threat th longer acknowledged that there was persecution generally of chinese christians but we said that's not enough there has to be a particularized showing of threat to this petition publications are everywhere i think and i especially again i think we can pick up these factors separately we do have to look at the real situation in considering again the mental illness the spiritual taint question his famous political cartoonist they stick a group once and somebody touched her breast once the man got rob and when he was rob the robber made an anti chinese remark i would imagine that there is not a country in the world where that sort of nastiness has not occurred including ours and as for robbers making ethnic remarks while they do the robbery i would be surprised if there's a country in the world where that hasn't occurred looting ours i don't understand the persecution and losing your job my gosh small town papers criticize the town fathers and all of a sudden all the illegal aliens are in the other doesn't criticize the town fathers and the paper goes broke i just don't get what the persecution is as opposed to discrimination which obviously there is against chinese christians in the efforts of the mormon church to proselytize and that it is expanding and its clientele points out they may not be a favored group within the nation but the idea did consider the country condition report and concluded that the mormon church is not being persecuted by the in the current indonesian government and in fact you found that the church is growing so how does that support your claim that they are members of a disfavored group for whom there is a likelihood of future persecution if they returned to and there are a couple of important part important points one is that  several years ago due to violence against christians three thousand christians were killed on account of their their religion five hundred thousand half a million christians were displaced on account of their religion they saw their churches burned this isn't a  rosy picture for the for the christians but the problem is the problem is that this evidence was before the i j a he considered it but he also considered it in connection with the two thousand state department country of what you are urging so where is the due process violation in the way that he evaluated this evidence that constitutes an abuse of discretion when the cia refused part of the problem is that the back to what you mention about the growth of the mormon church within its nature i think that would suggest it's reasonable to find certainly that something that fundamentalists are going to feel more threatened by a group that seems to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger if you have some group that is that is out there i'm with french judge said as i recall was on the one hand there's discrimination against christians on the other hand unlike most other muslim countries they actually let christians proselytize in the l church was from proselytizing with some success and they continue to be allowed to now our role in this is really not to decide if we grew with the i j a it's to decide whether the evidence compels us to find no substantial evidence on the record as a whole for the i j a this new deal universal camera deference to administrative agencies i don't know i don't understand your theory for getting round that well and important thing here is that what we're saying is that because of the various errors the i j a never really considered the merits of the case and so it is this court while we believe what i hear you say no it's not that he didn't consider the merits you just don't like the way you balance the evidence that he decided it wrongly and that that somehow violates due process and that's where i'm having a hard time following your argument if there is nothing about this if the record shows but you've submitted all this documentation and the i g had never discussed that at all i think you'd have a much stronger due process argument but what are really three arguing is our due process rights were violated because we decided the application adversely to marry him or because part of the problem is that they were not it's not just that they decided adversely to what we were proposing is that there was not a proper consideration i mean belong to a significantly disfavor group or groups there are chinese they are christian they are political dissidents they're mentally ill and thrown into the mix is the fact that some are female and they have been westernized this makes them stick out even more a the fact especially that the brother was beaten robbed their family house and then home cluster has been burnt to the ground these are rather personal things when someone comes to burn your house down and so if the but this taking in context of everything they stick out there are so many things that come together that point them out to their personal particularized harm i mean i understand but i understand that you were trying to get around lol on the conclusion that attention of their persecutors for instance and say all the the court said well they've been persecuted in the past best that's evidence that they're likely to come to the attention of their persecutors the point is what is making them stick out what is making them more notice correct and this court the problem with the same problem you've got here the law on had been in the united states for so long that she couldn't really point to any specific acts against her your clients have been here since  time and it would be ironic and extremely unfortunate for the one who has to have a short period of fortune by being in the united states during that period only to suffer a lifetime of misfortune by being sent back just because they were in the same same place durin court the court found that long did not put forward any particular rise risk of harm but that is not at all the case with with one who does not realize that you that you were discussing similar evidence that similar evidence regards the general conditions that would justify a second look on the substantive question of asylum i really don't get how because the he is bounced review whether it's any different and the question i would ask of you here is because it is now before us on p b s rather than a petition for direct from me we only grant think one way the court could certainly dress it is to say regardless of whether we will neither of you briefed it i was actually surprised frankly that the government conceded that the jurisdictional question so broadly because while we may constitutional claim if our presiding judge will will give a minute or two of rebuttal to your opponents i'll ask them the same question and see what they have to say but it seems to me that they might be able to get their by simply saying ok the issue is one of due process which is a constitutional issue and therefore we can at least examine whether it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to reopen on the grounds that the jurors were violation and that's what we would have so we can't really decide whether there was substantial evidence on the whole record to support the asylum determination can't really really decide whether  because i believe that provision we're talking about behavior right because i believe that that provision is the kind of the going forward provision in other words that it's governing things that were properly file that to the extent it would expand the scope of this court's review i think what congress was really getting at was it simply want to preserve what they would have gotten under hate this review and district court what would they have gotten they would have go of constitutional violation i believe i believe that's correct i believe that's correct let me if i could spend a moment talking about the initial decision regardless of the court's view of course it's our position that  also true that there were judy's have many relatives who still live in indonesia although in some instances they have been caught up in the general rioting they have not suffered anything that would remotely approach persecution there was one incident where they had a parked car no harm it's typically been in the context of being present when there was general rioting or when a large swath of buildings were burned and they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time what this court has emphasized time and again both in its more recent disfavor groups against ethnic chinese in indonesia the same is true in the a mob case where the petitioner gave evidence that demonstrated don't like that he had been personally harm and the court there to found the requisite individualized turning to the question about reopening i think it's abundantly clear that there was no evidence that helped find the change deficient to warrant reopening this case i think the board considered the court not a hideous court and even so my reading of the hay vs law doesn't confined he has jurisdiction just to constitutional matters i think it also extends to legal questions which gets me back to our point opposite result it's true but i think it's really the legal question of whether or not a proper legal case precedent was was followed and i don't think it was i think we have all of these warning bells the i j his own apologetic statement the fact that he gave concern that whoever was representing the why do you do that that point i just don't five hundred pages of material on him and i asked him to root through the record on his own rather than pointing out where the specific evidence the support of their application well how was that a violation of their constitutional rights the due process so you have the wrong legal standard in mind when he was surveying the record he was let's not what he was referring to or did i misread the record in there as actually ask the statement about could you please point out anything specific was after he asked that question asked or he made the wholesale comment i made an effort to try him and we have the same problem sadly with some of the people  i made an effort to wade through all this stuff that we should understand that to mean i did not look at this and i did not look at that stuff is a due process for evolution because he has an obligation to look at it as if i got your argument right you have you have and i think we can sort of amazes me i mean i looked at the excerpts in this case i couldn't list them it was just there's too much stuff that somebody doesn't help me get through it by showing me what to