may be asking what are we doing here because without asylum these petitioners are essence ghost in the united states they don't have any permanent status to be here they have to report to deportation officers every six to twelve months and those officers invariably say i don't have your file come back later and then when they do have the file they ask why weren't you granted asylum because generally phylum or persons were granted withholding but i think we understand the difference i think we i think we now what the issue is here sal i think why don't we look to the pool of factors then very good your honor if we look at the judge's decision at pages forty seven forty eight of the record we have his analysis of whether the response or petition is called deserve asylum and all that he concentrates on is that the circumvented orderly refugee procedures he does not take into consideration all the other factors of houla and i only have to consider the relevant ones for the most part again in my view and this is just my view that the one that probably if we're going to say that one that if one got a short script the one that i would say that would relevant that would be your strongest argument would be talking about family yes your honor family is very important because this is the only country where the history is hatha only and they have been reunited with that family but they have the specter of being separated from the family because withholding is a temporary relief in the future if circumstances were to improve they could be removed from the united states although unlikely but it is something that they carry with them now beyond family though there are some other very significant factors that the judge was aware of and did not consider in particular matter of age and that is where the agency failed to follow its own precedent decision and in examining those important factors the responder the petitioner also testified that he has chronic leg problems because of the torture and that he has frequent headaches you know when i think that obviously the i j a was concerned about you know that that and i think probably a factor that that that your clients or or they thought that only important people would get asylum and then an australia that mr i believe testified that he had applied for it that he didn't really have he didn't have the paper proof it and so you know obviously from the standpoint i mean everyone you know there's a lot of people understandably that would like to be here they had been in other countries then and i just felt like a they want to be here more than anywhere else and they had opportunities to be somewhere else well they didn't want to be here more than anywhere else because this is where they have family and they do not have family in those other countries and that in and of itself with that just trumps everything no and that's why it's one of the components in discretionary decision making process but going to your question as to whether they circumvent an orderly refugee procedures i think it's important to note that that when they became aware that a procedure was available to them they applied and they went to the australian government and did ask them for asylum they did not believe that they had a legitimate chance of success of applying grease for the other countries now when i strongly said no there are only remaining option was to come to the border and our country congress implemented specific refugee procedures at the border to allow persons in these identical circumstances to apply  believe both is true so it's all about those things are right i'm sorry he did not believe them as to whether he thought whether my client thought those procedures were available to me on whatever your client testified to regarding australia or why they didn't apply groups he did not use those as that or give them any weight when it came to denying the application he could've clearly the night on credibility grounds had he found the not be obtained in the respondent or the petitioner did make an effort to obtain that now but again the judge clearly failed to apply matter of kula and all the circumstances  that should be considered in a discretionary that denial and that is where the the judge manifestly missed the flight the law that's where the decision is clearly contrary to the law he did not consider the response or the producers age health and family which are are completely our lives i think in terms of there was all of those things where in the record it's just a question of and to say that it just doesn't it's one thing if you're decided to sign them applications in this manner it would mean that anybody who comes to the u s border and avails themselves of those orderly refugee procedures cannot be granted asylum because they've traveled through maybe canada or mexico or third country and may not may not have a view of avail themselves of those opportunities that just simply placed too much weight on that one of many discretionary factors to be considered and concerns are that matter of pool it does seem to you know put a fairly stringent requirement that you have to talk about the relevant factors and one of them is family and why were the papers on the applying for asylum in australia and seems to maybe not believe him but there's no adverse credibility finding ok so if we if we assumed that he if he was found generally credible it would seem to me that the i ching would have to accept that as true that he did in fact apply for asylum in australia and it doesn't seem that well here i don't think that the i j a necessarily disregarded that he just put less weight to it  it's a balancing of factors and he keeps he's allowed to give them certain factors less weight with regards to the matter of but not really discussing the family they talk that family may be considered but is not required to be considered can give it less weight in the instance of the being able to apply for asylum in greece mr sesno did indicate during testimony that he knew that certain people could apply for asylum so he did know that people were able to apply for asylum ask you what this means that while respondents claim that they applied for are quote australian government for asylum matter that should be easily proven there has been in significant corroboration claiming they claim to have applied but i do not believe it doesn't seem that you gave that last night it seems like you didn't believe it well your honor we would contend that he just gave it less weight he thought that you know if the person had applied for asylum there should be some paperwork and they had they have not only that how do i get around the words they claim to have applied but i do not believe it he that's not exactly what instead i mean he didn't say i don't believe it he said there's insignificant crabbe aeration i mean he that doesn't say that there's no corroborating that just means that there's not he would think that there would be more such as at some point if i remember correctly in the record maybe during the testimony say something to the effect of why you know what had they been able to get copies of the documents or receipt and there was nothing and i think there was some mention that that was a little unusual or it may have been in the testimony i thought i remember seeing something like that i don't have a specific didn't really say i didn't believe him because no one to them that their son worked in greece and they lived that they were able to live in an apartment there that they were never arrested detained or forced to leave greece that they voluntarily chose to leave greece even know it was forged documents even knowing that after speaking with the female petitioners brother that who had indicated they had no legal way to come to the united states they came anyway there was the issue here and uncles but i don't believe that there's a difference here in this court well your honor it is of record i mean i don't know that they specifically argued that before the board but the immigration judge just there was not a lot of information about any of the family members here other than that they had some family here and that they had provided money to the petitioners to leave great or i just might point out that with withholding their they they cannot just get it taken away they have to go through a procedure that is outlined in the regulations in twelve zero eight point twenty four and they are permitted to work they are permitted to travel they just have to get advance parole before leaving the country they cannot gain lawful permanent resident status and they cannot petition for as a third party but other than that there's not a great deal of difference between asylum and withholding court and so were raised in the same arguments and as you saw the board merely affirmed the decision below without opinion now the judge was also overly concerned about one other impact that grant simply not applied and that's where the agency failed us and the judge is also overly concerned about the line that this person is jumping in front of the line and he suggested that she would deny this person to teach a lesson not to circumvent the line there's a moral question there do you punish a person just as a hypothetical do you punish a person in order to teach others a lesson or do you punish the person for what they deserve we are asking that this person be examined soley on the merits in four corners of his application and when you look at his advances i think i don't think it is an inappropriate factor to consider i think it just