recent case of kerry versus barr this court articulated the firm resettlement analysis is a two step process st the department must present evidence of an offer of some type of permanent resettlement department may meet its burden by showing that the applicant received asylum in another country and it's our position that the court must look at the immigration laws and the refugee procedures in the foreign country to determine whether  permits we don't dispute that mistreat you say we see asylum in south africa we just dispute that asylum in south africa qualifies as permanent resettlement like doesn't it since it allows them to remain in that country and haven't that's correct and his he can lose his status if the government of south africa determines that conditions in his country of origin have fundamentally changed such that he no longer qualifies as a re remain in south africa for south africa for five consecutive years may seek a permanent immigration wasn't that part of the record they may and that's under section twenty seven  refugee who has been recognized as a site leave for a concert consecutively for five years may apply for permanent resettlement but in that case the standing committee committee for  refugee affairs must certify that he will remain a refugee indefinitely and that that happens very rarely mr ysaye never qualified for that type of government settlement he stay long enough to to the nd part of the analysis the court's decision in an airy versus barns directly on point well let's talk about that is it directly on point it appears that in the area case we said that the agency  to even consider the evidence that at the petitioner was harassed in the country where she settled is that the case here that the agency declined to even consider that eviden to consider miscarries evidence that she was persecuted in south africa that that happened in the case of mister he said the evidence was in the record but i would say in the  so the board considered well that they misstated his position though they they made it appear as if he was making some sort of speculative you know he yet this fear based on and he did testify in the i j a based his decision on mr ysaye is testimony that some somalis who face who find peace in south africa do remain indefinitely but mr you he testified that he had very big problems when he testified that when he lived in south africa it is this is objective s i would say it's an objective standard inmate or they would have to make a determination as to the extent to which somali refugees or otherwise persons somali ancestry in south africa are treated badly south africa and somalia but the in the state department's country report the state department states that south african police and immigration officials abuse refugees and asylum stressed that whether or not you agree with the immigration judges assessment of the country court it was address but mr ysaye relocated several times and yet he continued to suffer persecution everywhere he went he provided corroborating evidence then clued in a letter from i believe the somali refugee association in south africa in the police report to show him the incident that prompted them to somali refugees in south africa either operate a business operated shop or work for us from our young shop that's not in the record there's nothing to that effect in the records one way or the other is there i would have to look no i don't know if that's in the record but i again we're focusing on mr you say his experience not the experience correct they talked about foreigners living in south africa and yes and i would also like to address the internal relocation issue but i can do that  is the only critical factor the relief is available or does it have to be  sense of a legal mechanism by which you can obtain permanent status that would be sufficient so the in your in the government's view the fact that he could apply renewed his asylum status at the end of what was it four years or five years that's sufficient process in this court and several cases as found  the regulations defined as the conditions were not so substantially and consciously restricted by government officials and because  be correct for the country that the conditions in his or her residence in that country were substantially consciously restricted by the authority of the country of refugee c show that he suffered persecution in south africa wouldn't that fall within the exception if the persecution was at the hands of the government yes but that's not the case here well you know it is under two hundred and are under strict asylum you know if you're somebody playing for asylum in the united states and meeting all the requirements if that the government has had issues i wouldn't so so far to say that it's unable to to the extent that it would be like a failed state i'm  question of showing the extent of the problem and the word the fact that there is a problem can either be a very severe one or could be one that's less severe and so is about the issue is the extent to which does address that but from that you can determine the extent to which it is a problem it's recognizes that the question is the extent of it so in that situation with the government's position as to what we should do about that well what is clear is that the record does not compel the conclusion that the south african government would be unable or unwilling to protect them go ahead  i guess my concern is whether or not the agency you apply our law correctly and so really the book should defer to the board's approach whether that's any result in a meaningful difference and it doesn't really appear to be if anything the court want to talk about internal relocation we don't and are answering brief we noted that if that to the court gets to that question from sound but in somalia that he was suffered persecution in south africa and at a minimum that he never found a safe haven there i don't know that he's required to establish a traditional claim for asylum i don't know that he has to show that he was persecuted in south africa he has to show that he never found a safe haven there well no he has to meet this i think yes to meet the standard and for the record which is the conditions of his or her residence in that country were substantially and conscientiously or consciously restricted and according to by the authority of the country of refuge so he has there has to be some connection and there is and according to see on andriy asian and maharaj he can satisfy that by showing that he did not find a safe haven in the country where you had the sirens and when you say he has there in the st incident in the st year that he lived in south africa and he was working at the somali on shop they were robbed at gunpoint numerous times and then the perpetrators told them th your foreigners in this country you need to leave you don't belong ok i may briefly address the internal new location issue i think the government's conceded that if they don't