concluded that because she had been a prostitute whether voluntary or involuntary she required a waiver and she filed for that waiver and they denied it finding that she had not shown extreme hardship to her us that isn't husband notwithstanding their child and that decision is now on appeal so that in the separate proceeding that's a separate christine because she is an exclusion proceedings the immigration court did not have jurisdiction over her application for adjustment of sure now in terms of the object or things that the board of immigration appeals did not address i think it's very clear that they did not get to the question of whether she had an objective here whether there was  fear of being placed in a reeducation camp if she were removed they found instead based on their reading of this court's precedent and understand yell that her definition of the social group of former prostitutes failed because she did not show and she has not claimed that there is a sort of class wide persecution of that group what she tried to do was to bring herself more nearly under to be a precedent that basis she also tried to show that she was member of two other groups on the basis of immutable characteristics one being that of having been an expatriate and the other having been family association with a former officer of the south vietnamese army who himself spent four years in reeducation camp and she could not show and i don't believe she has to show that the government not they're more likely to say in the real world why this woman has it forced she was a prostitute she's an expatriate she's you know she's the daughter of stone sound so i'm told this woman is not somebody we want here this woman has to go to reeducation and that was what we were trying to portray to the board and then their response all they said was well first prostitutes aren't a social group presents not classified persecution and expatri is evidence within the state department reports and we cited in our brief cited in our brief to the us to the board in here saying that she would likely be subjected to great to near starvation to forced labor and all of those things are supported by the by the record the government's response to that was well if that's the relevant because she hasn't been sent to reeducation camp but that is very much in the record now as to the sealed envelope the government says that it's irrelevant because the when she was brought to the border when she came to the border they paroled her in that's not what we're saying we're not saying it's relevant to her in admissibility what we're saying is that it's highly relevant to her asylum claim the consul with whom she had repeated discussions before he gave her a transportation letter put in that transportation that she was a lawful permanent resident so that the airline could bring her to san francisco the consul knew full well that that was not true and he gave her a sealed envelope to get ins when she got there and she did and i think the only logical thing that could have been in that  inspection when she got here so there must have been something in that envelope to make them think that this wasn't just your normal case of a totally and documented person showing up on an airline and the government has repeatedly stated that that nothing was ever lost but they have refused to produce it we tried it the they tried to get it to trial and the government wouldn't produce it they tried through the freedom of information act they couldn't get it and we have raised it repeatedly and the government still doesn't say they don't have it they don't say it's not relevant to her style implying they just say it's not relevant to her admissibility and we have knowledge that that's not why we're trying to get it and then when it comes to the issue of the tension between the be a precedent and this court's precedent in terms of what is a social group the da defines it in connection with international law as here where it's based on an immutable characteristic that that the fly can define a social group but then if you belong to that social group unless you have shown past persecution you must show a well founded fear of future persecution she does not assert that the harassment she received when she was in vietnam under trickery rose to the level of persecution but she  that it had come to their attention and that this is an extremely dissipated group in the society in so just plain words that when it came out in the community that she had been a prostitute her son was harassed and was forced to dis the government does have efforts to try to stop crossed petitions but the efforts to rehabilitate former prostitutes there's nothing in the record to indicate that the government is in any way involved in those those are nongovernmental organization real or just threaten to leave well she was harassed when she was there i think that having the little games of people coming to her house on basically a daily basis to where she got afraid to go out of the house the fact that she was required to report to the police station on a regular basis where she was interrogated and repeatedly told that if she didn't leave on time or if she came back she would be put in a reeducation camp i think that is a well founded fear that we don't have to prove that it's more likely than not all we have to prove so maybe a ten percent chance but the fact that her father spent four years in a reeducation camp and that they threatened specifically that that's what they were going to do to her i say and the state department materials all show that that they carry through on their threats that they do ar people arbitrary and i think that that shows that her fear is well founded and i would like to reserve a minute or so i mean thank you very much founded fear future persecution in vietnam she has not and she cannot she had two opportunities to present her claim to the agency on remand in proceedings the board found that she an objective leave reasonable well founded fear future persecution in vietnam it did not reach the particular social group issue specifically of whether former prostitute or repatriates constitute a particular social group in vietnam because it's a term that she had not shown that these individuals face any risk in vietnam what is the government's position on persons who are actually put into these re education camps are they persecuted or your honor that would be a question for the attorney general in the first instance that was not raised in this case and that was not there's no agency decision on that specific question in this does claim that she would be placed in a reeducation camp upon her return to be anon however this claims belie both by the record as was pointed out that the government in fact at page two sixty eight of the record it does indicate that the government is working specifically with the non governmental groups to rehabilitate and ask this those who were former prosecutor prostitutes in vietnam but the record shows nothing to compel the conclusion that this bomb would be placed in a rage occasion can't upon her return for any of her alleged reasons so there wasn't that wasn't really my question my question was does the government have a position on whether you have placed in such a raised before the agency your honor in this spawns asylum application she claimed fear fear of persecution based solely on her or her status as a former prostitute and as a r be persecuted in reeducation camp she claimed that she would be placed in the reeducation camp and that that constituted persecution and it is you couldn't decide otherwise so don't take that to mean for be on account of any of the protected grounds first of all or that that placement in the reeducation camps constitutes persecution as invasion by the asylum law that has determination has not been made yet by the agency in the first instance it did not need to reach that question because here based on the fact that mr brown had returned to vietnam to be granted under false pretenses according to the record by her sister bringing her back to the unknown she was able to enter the country a grand one month paperwork has to remove someone from the united states you have to have the appropriate travel documents from the receiving country i'm not a quick to answer the question of whether vietnam is accepting individuals ordered moved or excluded from this country at correct to think ordered to get out of the country within a month and that she must get out that they would turn around and say yes well except her back seems a little tough call that's a fair question you not necessarily required to have any sort of reentry paperwork misspend was in vietnam for three months without any sort of threat to her life that was substantiated for her family and based on the record she still has family there in vietnam and there's nothing on this record to compel the conclusion that there's a well founded fear of her future persecution for her should she return to vietnam time he was he did give or additional documents to brinks united states and the letter explicitly states that the addict inspecting the immigration officer was bent to review her papers and determine whether she was eligible for admission into the united back and forth into the countries based on her sister's assertions and her sister was kind of the one taking control of all the documents she didn't have a lot of control her sister retain possession and that her sister had was not working with her to allow her to and to leave the country my sister has it i don't have it and this is how she was able to go to that consular officer who made multiple phone calls in order to get her the paperwork to get out of the country but again that and that goes more to her admissibility which was it was determined when she got here that she was not and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it would go to any sort of well founded fear future persecution i see my time is expiring with the panel has any further questions the government estimates that mr bond has not met her heavy burden of showing that this record compels the conclusion that she has an objection to reasonable fear of future persecution vietnam therefore we ask that you  very quickly i would disagree with the government that the compelled the conclusion is a correct test because as i stated in my opening the board never addressed the question as to whether her fear was objective lea reasonable they found that she had not established the fear of persecution based solely on the fact that prostitutes were not persecuted on it as a classified basis they did not reach that question and they did not reach the question of whether  she was a member of any social clubs but she also i would point out she told the consul that she had not finished her adjustment of status that there was this divorce petition pending you know she took the petition he sought