can transfer no i we wanted to state the ninth circuit yes let me ask you about your the merits of your case the reasonable fear fear of determination there was no pa can't use those acts in the us to establish past persecution but they can still be used to establish a possibility of future persecution i think what we had here the burden and reasonable fear proceedings is just a reasonable possibility for a ten percent chance there was testimony i think in a silent interview where the petitioner described the brutal abuse that she suffered from her from domestic violence i think one of the government's arguments in this matter was that mexico does criminalize rape and domestic violence but yes we're here isn't whether it's criminalized here birds whether it's in force country conditions make very clear that it's not at all she hasn't been contracted by her abuser in the past thirteen years why he's here and the fear of persecution his he lost his green card in two thousand and two yes so he may still be shiite he spoke about if you look at the actual interview or card and he hasn't attempted to contact her here in the united states based on his prior actions if he was here the united states he would have contacted her she did receive phone calls after the separation after she escaped to her sister's home and of that i believe she spoke with with her brother and made threats to her the evidence shows that he most likely is in mexico the issue here is whether she is returned to mexico whether there is a  need to show substantial evidence that why he's affirming the negative reasonable fear find in here the he makes several mistakes in his in his findings for example he states that she was able to leave her husband here in the united states and therefore we can't we can't decide that she is a member the particular social group of women unable to and that's that relationship but he makes a mistake here in that the issue isn't whether she's able to leave the domestic relationship in the united states whether she's able to do so in mexico obviously she's able to do it here that's why we're seeking protection in the united states because there's more resources to protect victims of domestic violence issues if she goes back to mexico whether she would be able to escape that domestic relationship and we've always said that she would not be able to do that so he made a mistake in saying because she liked relationship here and went to nevada then she's not a member of that again is he rel a motion to reopen at that time she's not familiar obviously with the legal terminology either of a motion to reopen she was not represented by counsel during the interview you statements and assertions are made and in the actual motion to reopen if the proceedings get reopened reopen and what evidence that they will introduce again this side to the result of your interview that she's still afraid of the husband and that the prior abused and that's the only explanation stated that the deadline or the time deadline to file a motion realty should be extended for battered spouse because they are about a spouse again to give one year it's longer than the ninety days agency said he did have lawful permanent resident status and i guess in another i j said that she was married to him i would reconcile that she didn't have unfortunately at the very beginning a lot of still doesn't really information about the specific status or even the marital status of them i did turned out that he was a resident and and because the abuse occurred before he way and the abuse i understand that you are and again we've always asserted that the abuse that she suffered did contribute to the delay in her fine the motion to reopen regarding the issues of whether she was married or whether he was a resident again it's been established now that he was a resident specially during the time of the abuse under the statute it does state that if you have a bonafide belief you're married to the abuser that could still qualify for relief here even if for some reason the marriage was never legally executed so here the fact that she did believe that she was married at the beginning as she did testify credibly to it would would presumably qualify for this rel though those are the big two big things that at this point have been established for the most part again i think the bigger issue is the timeliness of this again there's not a whole lot of evidence here because the proceedings were never reopened  aren't you happy here well congress mandated the statute not mandatory well it is i mean it's not jurisdictional your honor but it is mandatory and we've pressed since the beginning of this case to be transferred  but on the other the other interesting issue which this court has we disagree with but it's resolved already and dry is the standard to review the reasonable fear proceedings and the tenth circuit hasn't had a vehicle to do that with this case and we don't want to give them a judge completed the proceedings the immigration judge completed the reasonable fear proceedings in salt lake city that's why it's mandatory now it's probably not jurisdictional that's correct but it's mandatory and the supreme court has been clear as long as we don't waive it and we press it from the just assume substantial evidence as the panel has indicated there is no indication of past persecution here because most of the abuse occurred in mexico there were some hints that something might have occurred to me or excuse me most of the abuse occurred in the united states there were some hint that there were some issues in mexico but during a reasonable fear for spearing she never testified anything going on in mexico so we have no evidence of that turning to the future persecution analysis both have remarried since the abuse now the court obviously can consider it for the same reason that we discussed in the first cases actual record evidence but even if we were to consider it doesn't establish that he had a lawful permanent resident status of the time they were married he remarried three months after they separated we don't was from credible she testified that she was married to testify that she was married to awful current resident united states citizen she testified that she entered this country illegally not legally through marriage and she had no idea of her husband ex husband excuse me status so we don't know and i understand that you know it is kind of strange that you would petition a separate government agency in that kind of come on a decision but congress has placed the burden on her to prove the marriage and she hasn't done it but i posed as or i don't want to believe over reasonable possibility that he would single or out should she return to mexico we just have no indication of that she spent three months in baja california in mexico after she was ordered removed i believe it was in zero eight with her living with her sister and she did return illegally sense and but it wasn't because of her husband she put in a reasonable fear in the notes that there was a nightclub fire her believe brother in law had a robbery at his business and was murdered it was general crime related things it wasn't anything tie ex husband specifically the only evidence of anything tied rex has been specifically was in the home town she grew up and that's where she met her ex husband her brother still resides and argue ceased her br arguably her brother came into contact with her ex husband or ex husband said that he better never see her again otherwise he would hurt her but that was the only sort of evidence of any sort of threat or anything we've had and there's been no direct contact for twelve years so ok mrs windows it was originally ordered removed in may of two thousand and eight she felt her motion on september two thousand and eleven so it was three years too late there was a lot of discussion about whether her abuse could be an extraordinary circumstance to excuse for the one you're filing deadline and as judge reinhardt was alluding to there is no evidence of that and she could have provided the evidence with a motion to reopen a affidavit a decoration something that's a purpose of a motion to reopen to allow the duty to determine whether a full hearing is warranted she didn't do that so the motion is untimely now the agency did sort of go beyond that it said you know we deny this on time when it's grounds but we're also going to deny it because she he was a lawful permanent resident at some point while the vehicle wouldn't be for this courtroom remains on this record because this record was correct the record before to follow another motion attaching that and saying here's your evidence the other thing is they gauge kind of just brush it off saying well everybody who's views has is is you know injured in jazz trauma and therefore without really specifically considering what kind of trauma or lasting effects think he absolutely did and again there is no evidence the only evidence we have is a couple statements that she made there is no decoration there is no affidavit have a credible testimony before that this was and i don't believe that was in the reason of your testimony you know i don't think she was married to him right but it wasn't described she didn't link the abuse to the delay and filing i agree with your honor that this kind of you should be brushed off but i don't think that's what the here i think the immigration judge said that he didn't think what she claimed earlier in effect so that needs to the reason why she didn't file in time i mean west him in ninety eight she said filed a motion in two thousand and nine he didn't file at all during that period she went really go into great detail so i don't know for sure she's not because she's not disqualified from it would be the united states sedition ship quite false claim to which is a serious serious issue erred in several respects in his decision affirming the asylum officers negative results you're finding there are three main reasons number one again he stated that she was able to leave the relationship here  us number two is that there was no inclination of harm we there are in the record various affidavits are letters from from people who witnessed the relationship who claim on the record that she is still in danger from her ex husband if she is returned to mexico so there off there is evidence there showing there is an inclination of harm he didn't at least didn't mention those in the in the decision he made and then again the main reason he made was there was no government acquiescence that is contradicted by the country condition reports and the very specific information there regarding the plight of domestic violence victims and particularly in mexico they are just about