journalist philanthropist born in iran at the age of four she and her family her parents at the time were journalists for their national iranian television moved to the united kingdom for a brief  to be working for the for the b b c in london after the after their program was over they returned to iran that was at the beginning of the revolution in iran because they were journalists for the former regime they were persecuted and returned to london in one nine hundred seventy nine and received asylum there her family worked for the b b c at the time then later on because of death threats stopped their work currently they are in the united states as united states citizens working as federal employees in washington d c her parents she's a her parents are citizens are he in fact he belittled her recognition and not to riot even though there was a voluminous record information provided to the court about her articles her political activism her work as a political activist rsations in the court he enjoyed all that she had to say he enjoyed reading all the articles well the end he says something about something that i hope there's a way maybe there's a way another way you could received some recognition and not rightly so the petitioner's argument is that the be i abuses discretion in not really valued in the case based on her notoriety and her recognition and they didn't take into because it or if she did she file a declaration that did you ask did you ask them to treat it as a motion to reopen that you just filed a motion to reconsider we did you want to but we did provide in their new evidence which really didn't ask for a motion ok yes john so the b i did consider it as a motion to reopen and we consider it because of the new evidence that was provided and the new evidence was material and unavailable at the time of the hearing that the new evidence showed that let me ask you this let me let me just change you know the i j a asked erst made a comment that you know she was credible and way in which there might be a basis for the government to what is a call to to engage in some prosecutorial discretion and give her some status say the government said that we should file the six zero one a waiver and the two twelve at the same time as this case is pending so that is what the next step that we will be taking while this case is still pending we will be filing  motion to reconsider and motion to reopen i like to emphasize at the outset that that is all that we're addressing here the underlying merits of the immigration judge decision and the board's decision are not before the certainly ask it is just wrong i mean you're right four paragraph and there's really two operative sentences in there one is for the reconsideration and one which the board consider a motion to reopen because it it called out to new evidence section it's in the last paragraph  the respondent request that this court reconsider its decision based on the record produced at the hearing as well as the new didn't specify that it was a motion to reopen did did not sorry or she she specified that she was relying on new evidence there's no function in the motion to reconsider to consider new evidence that's a motion to reopen it's pretty standard for the boards to well to consider a motion to so consider new evidence of motion to reopen the new evidence was in the opinion of a constable no your honor that was evidence that was presented that's something that she suggested that the board in the immigration judge did not consider below that was something that they did consider that's part of her request for reconsideration she suggested that it was error for the board and the immigration judge not to consider that she was threatened in the u k and that it possible said you'll be safer in the united states that all played into the board's decision below that was part of the agency's decision below and i don't want here that's reconsideration that's reconsideration but let me ask you this or when i the movement movement needs to it's a place to provide the evidence that you have collaboration absolutely and the show that they would be entitled to relief and the board plainly recognise that here and said you didn't attach any evidence why would they treated his mission to reopen i think it was a benefits a petitioner to say look we understand we're trying to do here you're trying to get us to consider this new evidence and see how it affects your case he did and that's really a motion to reopen let's take a look at  are just jumped and there's a big difference between the two well they could have just said you've asked us to reconsider this is not the function of a motion to reconsider your motion is tonight yeah they could have and then what  motion to reopen she certainly hasn't suggested that this is a problem in her case it's not something that is something that she's waived if it is a problem in her case no but we look at these things to understand really pretty careful but i think you take a look at a matter of colo which is a standard the sort of basis for reopening or the board's approach to reopening the reconsider consideration of new evidence as a motion to reopen is standard and it that is what she was trying to do was have the board reopen her decision in this case just because she didn't specify it that way that is what she was trying to do that's the function of a motion to reopen and the board acted within its discretion by suit by determining that reopening was not warranted based on the evidence that she was suggesting affected her proceedings well i think advantage of her i think it was to her benefit your honor you know with her but she certainly hasn't suggested this is a problem in our case at any point but that let me ask you this  discretion that would allow her to remain in the united states if she's governed you know i don't know if you mean she has a i went thirty five pending she needs the number needs to come up that's correct probably years away you know i don't know what the number is for citizens of the absolute i just want to noted for the record i understand that's our position and my understanding i wasn't i was in the attorney brief this case and i sometimes use here but i know that opposing counsel spoke with my colleague about possible discretion ice declines i know his court can make its decision on the motion to reopen reconsider and it has no effect on her ability to go to d h s s ask for waivers and ask to be to be admitted on that basis and she can certainly go and do that but again the sole question before this court is whether the board abused its discretion in a nine a motion here and they clearly didn't you know her motion to reconsider was perfunctory the agency considered the arguments that she suggested that  didn't and they played into the agency's analysis and the new evidence that she submitted which was just a reference to to the british soldier who was killed in two thousand and thirteen i believe was not a similarly situated individual and it wouldn't affect the outcome of the proceedings and again she hasn't suggested in any in any context that that was an incorrect decision by the boy oh if you've been here a miss i think her son's two thousand and five although she had come a couple times before that is that right recently applicant so her order of removal stems from v h s and she's specifically in asylum only proceeding so the board here is not considering the ability the board was simply considering whether or not she was eligible for relief or release or she'd have to go to  we're not succeeding understood your honor but certainly she was willing to submit the weapons that she didn't submit it the board big gave her the benefit of the doubt there and said look we understand what you're saying here it's simply not a basis for reopening  that that was a problem but she hasn't done that and she hasn't suggested that is a problem in these proceedings there are no further questions or do you have a mediation office and would that be a possibility you know i i don't see what good mediation would do situated individuals like petitioner and in fact some of the errors were not taking into consideration the expert opinion that said that the u k government was unable to protect or not taking into consideration the case law that said that's threats were enough to show past persecution and comparing her to the case of navarre any which is not similar since she has a lot a lot of hold the case in advance until we file the way whereas with the d h s s or to find another resolution to this case because as you referred to on an immigration judge wanted her to find another way i'm not the way of relief and the case