aware about two weeks after i filed my reply brief the issue of this court's ability to decide mix questions of fact in law under ramadan versus in solids was definitively determined that's when the ramadan sale and also in the long changed circumstances in indonesia when presidents who watch o resigned on may twenty first ninety eight amid all the civil unrest that civil unrest continued through the year two and there's a variety of types of change stricken stances these ones are changes in the country of of nationality so in this case in indonesia and therefore that was primarily the only bar th counsels below failure of even briefer argue that point was the only thing that held her up from granting asylum now this court has the ability to decide as a matter of law that the application was timely filed under the statutory exception that is more fully spelled out in the regulations that i've stated let me see if i understand you correctly you're saying that no question that they didn't file application for asylum timely under when you stated within one year there really are states now questioning the right ninety two that the  situation in egypt changed during a period of time to make it more likely that they would be persecuted definitely the jews are truly is an ethnic i he denied the extension of the one year period on the grounds that there were no trees no the judge actually it's not clear that immigration judge fully understood what the bar was there about exceptional circumstances rather than changed or extraordinary circumstances the issue was the judge said this is the changed circumstances and just somehow read into the regulations an additional one year time period there was some comment about that they didn't file even within a year after may of one thousand nine hundred eight the regulations don't state anything about that the one year barrier is an asylum bar but the changed circumstances statutory exceptions that allows for a petition be filing considered timely filed yes it's filed as a regulation says within a reasonable period given those changed circumstances now those changes are complying with follow you're getting what country that in their view and then they've got to persuade the i j a of course make it much more likely years significantly more likely that they will in fact be persecuted and that allows them to reopen the time so that they can apply for asylum but they have to show change conditions but my understanding is that they are here said we're not going to allow you to take advantage of that exception for change conditions because you've waited for more than a year after the beginning of the riots now why which was decided after the briefing in this case is a question for this court to decide and although this is the facts are undisputed the president to watch all resigned on may twenty first next ninety eight the riots continued the civil unrest particularly against the i think chinese christian ability now under ramadan to decide that those that giving those changed circumstances which in this case where the indonesian changed circumstances that the application for asylum is within a reasonable time now i think we need to file for two thousand and three just whether they have changed conditions there but whether or not the filing was within a reasonable period and of sort of some part of that question the i j a holding there's not a reasonable time how much deference to leo to that or  types of change circumstances that could apply in this case the undisputed the changed circumstances was the persecution against ethnic chinese christians during this at this period of unrest that lasted for two almost three years particularly  he was told by an indonesian lawyer not in this checking who represented him below that he would have a small chance so he kept applying every year for the diversity visa and then his brother came over and then his sister came over and then when you can file an application within the time of certain changed circumstances but it has been the routine that after the triggering event in this case the rights of me a and that's the question as to whether or not the disfavored group analysis that i will say was applied and serial but in fact was announced in one thousand nine hundred four in the courthouse case from pronouncing it correctly and it's been routinely disfavored the less evidence of particularized persecution as to the individual is required yes so it isn't a matter of burden of proof only it's a matter of the type of cases they're putting into sort of abstract presumptions sort of analysis forms something that's common sensical that is to say and i'm not just kind of kind of paraphrase the  from ninety four we know and this is in the regulations of the board that if there's a pattern and practice of discrimination which is a pretty high standard all your dues prove you're a member the group still for example if you're in nazi germany in one thousand thirty eight if you're if you're trying to figure out what the likelihood is of this individual being persecuted well figure out ok what group is this person a part of is it a religious group or this is an ethnic group and so on political group well it co stands to reason that it did to the degree that there's a strong feeling against that group in that society the chances of that person suffering go up a little bit now that's a common stance and it seems to me that the only thing that  to withholding which isn't a title meant it's not and it's a temporary thing and you were a child to it if you qualify it asylum is a different form of relief and a different standard and it is