tortured her brother her twin brother was killed persecution is not an issue the government doesn't have an issue with that the issue is about what the judge did in this case with respect to discretion the judge denied this lady relief because she was a member of an organization called o l s and there's a in the record what was the discretion based belonged to an organization that planted land mines regardless of her knowledge i understand that now did you what tack dad in your brief i believe i did you know how did you do  shame for the government to prevail simply because i didn't do it as significant when i'm trying to help you or not hurt you i'm i'm asking you really where you were whether waver whether expectations statutory eligibility issue however it's my understanding that the standard of review of the attorney general's discretionary judgment whether to grant a son and shall be conclusive unless manifest discretion if based on any reasonable fact there's a woman who says that she was engaged in fund raising and belong to an organization which the state department tells us plans to land mines and kills people in a terroristic way she says i didn't know they were doing that and she's believe isn't there's a positive credibility finding out an adverse credible crime so we have to take that to be true she didn't know that but the i j a says whether she knew it or not we are not going to allow her to stay in this country because she raises funds for a terrorist organization she may be what the londoners used to call useful fools but she shouldn't stay in this country and i thought his reasoning was wrong with it well let's run with it your honor and i will at the entrance in the proper order but i would like to in the record on page one eighty five and eighty six before the judge makes a decision the judge says hand and let's just know where he's headed he said i'd like to know about more about the l a law for this reason because if i conclude that she is i'm inclined to at this point if the all over is in fact a terrorist organization i'm going to deny it as a matter of discretion but if it's not then i think she deserves a grant of a um and nowhere in the record will you see that this organization is a member of the terrorist organization several times a case with continued it was reset to give the trial attorney an opportunity to show that the o l f was a terrorist organization and it was shown that it was not i'd like to reserve my two minutes but i also want to answer your question so i am going to stop right here w that waiver argument if it finds that it will either result in a manifest injustice or or in a case like this where we we are not prejudiced because we raised the issue in our brief however well are you really are you claiming kno matter of discretion was waived by petitioner or or the court is free to find that since we addressed that and if we adequately addressed it without any arguments to answer that's where we're prejudice we have no idea when we write the response brief what arguments of discretion here is fully ventilated and you're not prejudiced you're anything more you want to say to protect the i gazed exercise your discretion is i understand basically  that she belonged to the organization she gave by mr the organization and and you're claiming your organization is a terrorist type organization well the word as counsel correctly points out the organization is not listed in the state department and it's not a it's not a terrorist only contributed to an organisation this was somebody who believed in what this organisation was doing to her based on what happens we're brothers she got heavily involved in the aroma liberation front she raised funds for them she worked for the leaders of the organisation and at that point what the immigration judge is saying is someone who goes into an organization and works hard for organization like this even though they don't know exactly what that reportedly is landmines it's not a terrorist organization she says she did nothing about that i mean i mean we're talking about a rather primitive area of the world har are we talking about a premier talking about a pillar there you know like it's not like you get there's mass communication and you know you sort of supposed to know what's going on all over and they end the i j a finds that she didn't know anything about this and she honor because what the immigration judge is saying is that if again because the organization's activities in other areas were repugnant and that's the language used by the immigration judge that he was going i saw him as a matter of discretion because of the counsel correctly points out asked for information more information about the organization to see if it was listed as a as a terrorist organization and it is not because it does not affect the interest of the united states and that's what the state department focuses on this doesn't mean terrorist so they didn't do that but i think if you read the decision as a whole he did do that he did do that by granting first of all granting withholding a remove or he recognizes what she wants for granted that that is those facts  is as far as whether the individual will suffer torture this is no longer an issue in the case that that goes away soon in the balance becomes a little easier for the immigration judge as to whether or not to grant asylum because the person indeed protected from any future persecution because they are not returning to ethiopia unless conditions vastly improved there and that's that's what that's why this exercise of discretion is proper in this case and that's why the judge balanced all the eight talks about that the human rights record in ethiopia is poor and also on that same country port on page two thirty eight talks about the government continued to detain people sympathizing with or being members of the  granted her withholding i think that's like splitting the baby he really he tried to make equitable decision but when he didn't he didn't he didn't asylum and really balance those factors including he didn't look to the fact that o l f was one of many groups in ethiopia including the government whose that was planting landmines you're that's a dangerous road to go down because what one judge deems repugnant another one wouldn't and it's just a slippery slope so the factors he should have considered which he didn't consider was one  mean you're talking about withholding it's not a discretionary type of form of relief as far as i understand we're talking about assignment there is that additional discretion but what the judge did was he  attorney had an opportunity to present the the evidence and it never showed up in court and it's absent from the record so i would have if it if we could articulate what i would like the judge to balance balanced the matters in coming to withholding of removal he didn't come to the same conclusion as to asylum because of the way he gave her membership in the landmine planning organization again the last two paragraphs of the i g s opinion he was very clear that he was making this determination as a matter of discretion because of the landmine usage as found by the state looking specifically at at his decision in the exact area that your honour's talking about this is the responders personally anyway then once i may have been lead the court finds her involvement with an organization an individual renegade but it does appear of the acts of organizations i believe are attributable to his active member is that the abuse of discretion