armenia and in this case here the the word i believe misapplied law and missed some point points in the record that would actually speak to something  five of the administrative record it says as the immigration judge noted the evidence of record particularly the lead respondent answers to the d h s s questions on cross examine and examination does not support the lead respondents claim that her  exert their influence outside of khumri where the city where the response with the titian is let and first of all one thing that bothers me about that statement is that that's not necessarily what's required here i mean in first of all there are two there are two subsections in which you can look out for for a discretionary considerations one is change example or we reviewed a country report has a very similar situation in the country reports produced by the state department that there's a serious problem in various areas of a particular country have a difficulty well ok first of all in this type of situation under under the reasonableness of internal relocation it's again it's not required that the particular people who are client she wants to wants to speak out about issues that she feels strongly about wherever she goes and that therefore the united states has to is that the chill she she connected to whatever risks problems dangers that the children had to her presence and it's that she's not around that that increases the risk of harm to them certainty that she is going to be able to relocate because it's because they're the government still has some restrictions on movement  i mean although it says that this practice now more of a nuisance from impediment that sector but there's still some holdovers from the old per the school system that was under the soviets the other thing is that they don't mention in the about whatever in order to get the authorities mad at her and then again at her kids but the record also shows that the kids are staying with acquaintances when they could be staying with relatives and  because it's the burden of proof not a burden on production mr president one is a decision in this case not mandated by the the limb decision that we decided in two thousand if you recall a case involved  found that relocating children the persecutors failure to contact the optical over a long period of time in a country court were insufficient to rebut a presumption of a well founded fear of persecution well first in this case this children working right so the fact that there was she was there while she was there but again it goes to show that these children are probably safe now because she's not there but because they are outside of the locality and also in this case not only failure on the other on the part of the government to particularize where you think she's going to go in armenia what's your response to that again we government has the burden of proof here what why didn't they do anything on that what what is your response my response is that on of friends in other parts of germany saying that they were anti porn or violence but the court also looked at the fact that the world would be difficult because they would have to wait years for a new apartment i mean again these are all a part of the things that