obviously we've seen the recent decision by the attorney general in the case of daniel gourmet i need to sleep and we asked obviously about this decision we don't believe the attorney general may be correct rulings matter say well you can if it were china really and even if we looked at all of this new evidence this quote unquote new evidence you think bears on the decision it wouldn't make any difference because you're your client which still is and as i and as i understand it that's the decision that's before us why was your client entitled to an entirely new hearing he had a chance at the st hearing to present all of his evidence as to use to why it was a title to cavalier so and he and the judge ruled against your client on yeah  did i'm not sure why you think your you would be entitled to sort of a did no hearing on that issue given the limited leave them but even putting that aside to be ident good look at the new country conditions evidence that you presented yeah i think it was  presented it to the eye and it said but this isn't enough to make any difference because your client would still not be entitled to leave so i just i'm just not sure on what you're complaining about in terms of the process it has to mine your honor and and h of evidence that you attach as exhibit c to your blue brief that is a report published in two thousand and eighteen that talks about country conditions for military deservers in the vapors and i don't see that that was specifically examined below the only thing that i didn't see that has been raised that wasn't specifically exam below there was a finding about his risk of  his individual risk of being targeted because he had been a military dessert or are they are but not about country conditions and i'm wondering and i'd like you to address specifically how you view the impact of that  before the immigration court here are you meant was that the matter then what what then just call a massacre wasn't a massacre and that on appeal you presented a different argument for the st time which is that his participation in that battle was go through the procedure in this case because it is a little bit confusing and it's really important to understand what is before the court in august of two thousand and sixteen the ford affirmed of both was holding asylum decisions by the judge down to the immigration judge the petitioner maybe your argument that he did not receive the decision the october th decision i'm can't however the immigration judge looked at that and said number one you were not represented by an attorney for his present attorney did not file his notice of appearance until fourteen for thirteen months after the immigration judge issued that decision and the decision was sent to the petitioner specifically and a one hundred detention center where he had been detained where he was released he did not update his address which is what he was required to do and that is the reason that of the board but as i as i laid out in my brief and as the immigration judge noted in her two thousand and sixteen decision around her her and her march two thousand and eighteen decision on the motion to reopen mister although he received the four decision romeo did and he was well aware of the fact that this case was going back to the immigration judge he has to file a separate notice of appearance in front of the immigration judge  you know i follow it all then your brief and i get your point my question is can must have done that it isn't the case that he must have done that st on the face of the decision itself the immigration judge says the st notice that he filed was in november of two thousand and seventeen when he also requested a copy of the october th decision ok so i guess i'm just confused as to the internal processes by which the immigration court mails out its decision so you're saying that there are i understand that you do need to make it fairly separate appearance form before the immigration court that's separate from the v o a i guess but then i don't understand why if the immigration court is issuing the decision and lists a particular attorney representing the respondent why wouldn't the court may hold the decision to that person that's listed on the face of of its own decision why would it not to some other lawyer that doesn't make any sense it might mail and i think what happened was this is the comment about a female sort of on returning they would file perhaps they would mail a courtesy copy but the fact that that warrior did not see that is not a basis  and they might have and i believe they do if there was an attorney who represents a significant part of the ford i believe they would find they would send that attorney a courtesy but it doesn't mean that they have to do that and they submit any other information and on the basis of the information that the i g had in front of her which included the current country conditions she found that there was no likelihood of him being tortured return to syria and of course that convention against torture has very very specific requirements you know it has to be fire with the dozens of government and what the immigration judge said on was that you know on the basis of him being a christian and in fact minority religions in syria look to the government for protection so it was only lightly and we also pointed to the fact that his family to work for the government his brother his father his father was a border patrol agent his brother was a police officer both of them including the rest of his family have remained in syria and were there at the time of the hearing and in the motion i believe and perhaps most likely are still there and they have not suffered  problem on the basis of their religion class talent or because he has custody there because you make this point and we have read your brains i promise we read them carefully and you make this point very clearly but they're not in the position he's in the eye and i just want you to respond if you could but if it is it what is your response to his argument which is that that photo puts him in a different position from his family members it might put him in a different position but how does it show that the government would torture him based on that this was a private citizen who had been hit the been his superiors and me in the military who he said took a dislike to him when he realized that he was a christian that he was not a muslim and that he you know had approached him about joining some group when he refused and then was outing him in that way but that does not prove that the government which is what you have to prove either by or with you have the essence of the of the government here this is one military officer who i'm not sure the record even shows at the time get close to that photo was still in the military so it's really a private citizen outing him in a way for being christian perhaps for having been in a military but there are very very many former military officers who remain in syria with no problem with the government i mean after all who work for the government as a military you know as a soldier so he doesn't  know except for his late or you meant that he was he was a defector but there is no there's no evidence in the record that he didn't affect i mean the evidence really shows that he finished his term and he declined i think to to defector you just heard it said for this reason i don't remember minimal what is needed is a specific statement white christian military defector who fled the country and was threatened by extremists but that's the only that's the only reference that he makes to that that's in his motion to reopen reconsider the files and there's no there was no evidence or any prior argument in front of the immigration judge originally that he was looking for asylum or withholding on the persecution for people who are military of baiters are concerned i don't i don't believe that that i could be wrong but i don't believe that that is in the record and the immigration judge and the port would have was just attached to the br the briefs and of course i mean the board of the immigration judge cannot use it or what is not in front of them and they also can't consider arguments that are that are you know one line referring to military defectors when there is no other evidence that he defected or that he previously unavailable evidence and i'm not sure that this although it's a two thousand and eighteen report i'm not sure that there were no previous reports that cost about defectors and the treatment of defectors in and so if it were previously available to the war it would not have raised and we see that as as the court pointed out he had a full and fair hearing originally in october of two thousand and fifteen when the immigration judge heard all of his claims he was represented by a very able to czerny he was able to put in and in fact did put in multiple documents that are in the record to support his case to go back now and to say i get a do over or i get to you know put in even his argument that he gets to put in more evidence about the mandatory persecutor for is just simply not supported by a lot he did not file a timely appeal to the board saying what he would where he would prove you know new previously unavailable and material evidence you know showing what you know that he has at least a promise fish a case and so really what is before judge clearly jude souter his arguments it took into account the evidence that was in the record it took into account his arguments about due process and i found that just none of them was supported by the evidence or by the