answered i tried in malaysia i tried in south in saudi arabia but they don't have any political asylum process the only the united states is basically the only country that's willing to take me and then again when the government then a question throughout all of these proceedings it's every page where the judge is telling the immigration judge your questions are irrelevant whatever that is already stated in the application he did not allow any testimony allow the petitioner to answer the questions from the beginning the petitioner felt that he couldn't answer any questions i was not the immigration and i was not the attorney representing the petitioner during these proceedings however we were not there i wasn't there but just by reading the transcript every other line you know originally the attorney said i want to raise an issue so excuse me i'm not taking argument and then throughout the whole proceedings go ahead go ahead that's irrelevant when counsel i'm not that's not a relevant question now how do we know we can't look ahead how do we know that the petitioner was not going to go into how in malaysia and how in saudi arabia they don't have that  four years with his family yes we're not interfered with a lot but were allowed to live there right allowed to because he had a job opportunity and in fact allowed to leave in return he was allowed to leave return however if he did not have that job he would not have been allowed clearly he was not given the opportunity to need to present that saudi arabia does not offer permanent we start a match in the united states we offer  working visas to people all the time yes they can come here they can work for their employees they have a three year period they can come to can go they can travel but the day that they stop working for their employee in ten days they have to leave the united states any indication  accept him it was the point ok do i suffer with this job that i have but if i don't like the job then i'm going to be booted out i'm afraid to go back to my home country i'm going to be killed mike so your position is that he didn't permanently resettle in saudi arabia there's no evidence of that because  apparently a new surely has and it has to be met before anything else and i crikey do not know what council is talking about i can't find anything in that regard in the regulations so i can't find it in the case law  get that those factors the regulation that was involved at the time of this hearing was the two thousand regulation it's irrelevant whether it was ninety seven two thousand or two thousand and three there's this thing they're just remembered or transitory yes yes and certainly not in most cases something measured in years especially if one is living in working but anyway on the second one it talks about i think this what you want to strike you factors that can be and what we know on this record is because regardless of what the i g did or didn't do at that one particular page that's been referred to are right or wrong the courts only the government's attorney just a few pages later takes the through right down the line covering the questions that need to be covered to get to this shifting into ferdinand to get at least what they call opinion i didn't see a finding about what country first person had very firmly resettled in third as a reference that's the applicant was either in malaysia or saudi arabia you can't be firmly resettlements to countries i don't think so which countr is an important issue because basically it implies that that person can go back there and work so you know i just i have felt that of a difficulty with it and the concept i mean i understand particularly when you see it and it's tough to get hard evidence of somebody person maybe from country a but let's say they're claiming asylum and they'd been living however in country b before they got to sea so first there's an attempt made to return the person to  he doesn't want that person or won't take that person then you have to consider and so it's not just something his or her charlie made up but it's right but here we have some regulations that are pretty it's the question focusing on the fact that there are two countries outside the home country involved or that and the absence of a finding and i and the absence of before i think well perhaps this fall back he does at least mention the two countries injuries e and they found that because of the duration and circumstances the presumption did not show meaning to say that there is the burden there of the government and when we have a situation where you need to that should have been at least more evidence should have been allowed throughout the testimony so that he could prove his claim and i believe every man would be necessary in this case to do that thank you very much for you are going to thank both counsel for their argument this last case