fuller initially we would we would argue that the board the board of immigration appeals erred in the well immigration judge erred in not granting the motion to reopen and then the board erred and not to reverse an immigration judge's decision scuse me why well i guess there's two principal reasons two main reasons one is this change in the law didn't happen in the matter of a t the tourney general's decision until two thousand and nine and eight and then the board subsequent decision two thousand and nine it's one twenty understand it's not control it was not published but i think it still persuasive the original agency decision here consistent with matter of eighty and a n t i mean your client was granted withholding and  it was based on a determination that she suffered past persecution and would continue to have a fear of ongoing persecution is an f victim sit to the extent the law changed in that she get the benefit of that and the original determination you know what it's a yes and no i would say yes she got some benefit but she didn't get the benefit that she was eligible for asylum asylum is so much difference here it seems to me like the only thing that would be made a difference is that she missed the deadline correct we believe that she likely would have been granted asylum and she filed within the one year but but we believe that she needs an exception and as i am arguing it's two for two fold the reasons why she needs are the two exceptions one is a change in country conditions subsequent to the immigration judge's decision and and  members so so we believe that the that the board in the immigration judge erred in not granting the motion to reopen again for a change judge's decision and subsequent to the board's decision there's also the argument that she was denied her constitutional right to due process and no the government would argue that well specifically noted in our brief to the to the board that issues of due process even though maybe they were not specifically labeled due process violations for example we discussed a proper weight in deference to corroborate may please the court my name is mark on it and for the united states attorney general your honour's the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying this motion to reopen a non citizen must file a motion within ninety days of final administrative removal order here the petitioner filed her motion six years after the immigration judge's decision and as the agency found she failed to establish an exception to this filing deadline the petitioner raises two main arguments  her motion st she claims that the attorney general's issuance of matter of eighty constituted a material change warrant in reopening she also claims an exception based on country conditions in guinea the agency properly rejected both of these claims are foot st address the petitioners matter of eighty argument as the agency found this attorney general's issuance a matter of eighty did not constitute a material change warranting reopening because there was in fact no change the immigration judge denied asylum based on the one year barbecue ranted withholding of removal on the merits in doing so the immigration judge aligned on this course decision involving the k c in which this court rejected the board underlying matter of eighty decision finding that the board had a row knisley presume that f p m was a one time act such that its infliction necessarily rebutted the presumption of future persecution relying on this decision the immigration judge found that the petitioner had experienced past persecution in the form of after him and that her fear of future harm had not been rebutted accordingly the immigration judge's decision one month later then the attorney general issued matter of eighty rejecting the born's underline matter of eighty decision for the same reasons that this court did and bought accordingly the immigration judge's decision is completely consistent with the attorney general's matter of eighty decision are you saying that law does not meet those regulations and so not only is it can it not meet those regulations but there is no material change the court should therefore deny this aspect of the petition for a few attorney next to the petitioners argument regarding country conditions in guinea with her motion the petitioners submitted general country conditions regarding general ethnic and political upheaval in guinea she then clarified before the board that she was submitting this evidence in support of reopening her original f p m claim the agency therefore properly found that this evidence was not material because she's already been granted protection from relief and protection from removal in the form of withholding of removal based on this original claim in addition the country conditions are not material there's no link between the general conditions and the petitioners original f p m claim accordingly the petitioner as she makes clear is just attempting to reopen her original f p m claim to get the benefits under asylum while understandable this completely undermines the one year bar and the structure of the i and i the court should therefore deny this aspect of the petition for view finally the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petitioner sue us fine to end the agency's denial of to a spontaneous and the petitioner failed to exhaust her due process claim if there are no additional questions in conclusion the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying this motion to reopen and the court should deny the petition for review thank you situation her circumstances she's a victim of female circumcision that continues on the facts and that continues on effect her throughout her whole life till the day she dies  has physical and emotional trauma and pain and suffering and complications associated with it and as we