hundred one he specifically indicates that he could not reside in turkey that they would send him to suffice explicitly to that he provides evidence with respect to jordan on page five hundred forty six zero eight and again on six twelve six twenty four in fact the the cover page of the evidence back it says evidence relating to respond it's right to return to jordan demonstrating that in fact he would be sent from jordan back to the occupied territories where the immigration judge has concluded that it's your position back to the turkey and jordan would result in him having a fear of persecution torture the immigration judge give no analysis whatsoever of the likelihood of his removal from those countries back to the place where she determined he would be in fact torture president's wife and seven children on why why is the i j a required to figure out what's going to happen to somebody after the ch board of immigration appeals the board said what was that the immigration judge didn't address turkey and jordan was not under no obligation to address turkey jordan because the i g wasn't raised of mr byass fear of going to those countries which result in him being removed to the occupied territories that finding that basis which is the reason why his appeal was dismissed is only unsupported by the record if the board if on remained the board says well the immigration judge had no obligation to the board of immigration appeals they never contended that he waived his right to speak with them from the occupied territories from jordan or from turkey they never raise that issue because of the an abstention question and in fact the immigration judge found him to have a well founded fear more character and in addition the board correctly conclude that the petitioner failed to apply for withholding government from turkey or georgia and finally this court should decline to consider the application of eight us he in section advised the immigration judge that he feared that turkey and jordan would in fact remove him specifically to israel there is no evidence and the records to that effect instead he claimed that he would not be able determine the effect of not accepting and that accords with the traditional policy of affording broad deference to the president in matters of foreign affairs in the conduct of the nation's foreign relations on that front judgment also allows the attorney general and the executive branch to take into consideration changing political and economic circumstances as well as practical and geopolitical concerns and as i understand the test testimony was basically that he would not have citizenship or permanent residence in jordan right there and analyse as and so we don't know how long they would let him stay or not  on the board correctly concluded that dish here did not raise a claim for withholding from those countries because he never advised the immigration judge that he had in fear that he had suffered past persecution in turkey not entirely clear what the immigration judge was asking at that point because as the immigration judges subsequent decision shows she did select other countries over movable and properly did so under subsection immigration judge also said that he's been in a western country for thirty years and the only place he can go back to work is the west bank and so it's not clear where analysis the immigration judge may have been referring to in that case but regardless the board correctly concluded that stationary did not raise a claim you for withholding of removal from either turkey or jordan because the there was no evidence about any past harm or future persecution in either of four question one b and section b of the five eighty nine the only relevant question is have you experienced were do you fear mistreatment or harm in your home country that's the only question right on the floor so it's left to the respond to develop the record and it's unclear how he could further develop the record in order to express his fear returned to jordan and turkey that it would result of him being returned to the west bank and the immigration judge asked me whether or not the only place he could go was the west bond well he's presenting his testimony of his understanding of the immigration procedures in jordan in turkey and we presented background information relating to what the right of individuals to reside in jordan in turkey and the key is the immigration judge didn't consider this evidence and then rejected the immigration judge didn't mention this issue didn't discuss this issue literally not a word was said in the memory maybe immigration judge thought the only thing  expressed and at the very least it would need to be considered and rejected if the immigration judge said that's not a statutory basis to a team with leading a removal that would be one find in there would be a different question for the school but again that's  found to have a fear of torture and all of those findings when they use the region and of the country to correct and those findings have not been made by the agency even though the agency was used to mr biased fear of such actions by decision well after testimony had been taken and at no point had either the government argued that he should be deported to turkey or jordan nor had the immigration judge said roy and intend on ordering his removal to israel and the alternative to turkey or jordan in fact the first time she designated the countries of removal was in her written decision after testimony was taken but again to to answer going to quote your honest question as a matter of course i mean that's not normally a question that's asked it's more of a the record being developed as a whole and where for example evidence packet is submitted entitled respondents right to reside in remain in jordan we would submit that is certainly sufficient to appraise the immigration judge of his fear of being returned to jordan that would result in him