issue that my client should file a motion within the ninety days which he did know the point is he's now contesting his prior conviction where in fact in our prior decision of this court we said that he was convicted and that's that's the law of the case we can't go back in and say we're not we're going to look into that conviction if the fact that his conviction has been determined by this court already very that's not the issue the issue is this conviction was  protection on the grounds of being falsely charged based on activities that his father was involved in to where i get a problem is once we decided that he was convicted we had to determine the nature of what that was when we found the nature of that saying well even though i was convicted forget about what that means because i was i was tortured and i really didn't do that so i've got a conflict here that i can't resolve once we found that he admitted that he was falsely convicted so it's no good we found absolutely no yana he's always said he's never even had a hearing and he never had an issue of this if you go back to that you have it in the transcript in the nine hundred ninety five transfer he dealing with and that battle basically the issue which the the i did not deal with and that's why we have before you we want to hearing on that we've never been presented are allowed an opportunity to present that case thanks very much drug trafficking conviction was for an aggravated felony and we're now here to determine whether or not he is eligible for release under i'm eligible for protection under the convention against torture that issue but they looked at them but when they look again they looked at a motion to reopen that he filed in order to determine whether or not he should even have a hearing a full blown hearing on this and his motion to reopen tonight even establish kind of face the that there's not there's nothing to indicate that the police have any interest in the store teeth because of his father's union activities and his speculation to the contrary is not sufficient and that the court record and it just wasn't sufficient the board looked at the evidence he had his prior testimony from the hearing there was barely any difference between his testimony with regard to what he would have said  reason to continue along that well where i'm going is and then we think the next step you know filed a motion to reopen or the conventional torture and they used the same hearing information to make their prime official determination  s they didn't deal with my client declaration which is transcript zero zero zero three five to three eighth and far more important that's the subjective opinion is the objective report which is part of the record which is cleaning movement cleansing movement going on and what and who are members of the social cleansing movement anybody defined as a contact who was released from prison had they're going to be murdered and they're been found about eighteen to twenty bodies in the capital city this is basically the verifiable proof objective facts none of this was going to quit none of this was discussed either my clients object to fear his declaration none of that