family have firmly resettled in canada deemed the third country in this particular case prior to their federal to the united states and calling of an application for asylum counsel if you read the regulation literally as as your grief does  see the straits of your argument but i'm troubled by its logic let's see if i think i'm remembering the right case this is the one where he went to canada as the man and his wife went to canada and canada was processing their asylum application and while canada was processing their silent math location basically they decided they didn't like their jobs as a janitor and a worker in a nursing home or something and came to the united states hoping for better employment my concern is if you treat that is not being firmly resettled in canada then it means that anybody during the  between the filing of an asylum application and the granting of it is free to look around the world for the country they like best but the purpose of permanent settlement doctrine is the first place you land where you're safe and you can stay that's it it's it seems to me that in logic if there are silent application in the united states is good then they are silent application in canada is good and they would have been allowed to stay in canada if they wouldn't have been allowed to stay in canada because their asylum claim was not going then they wouldn't be allowed to stay in the united states it's so not quote they would have received asylum however the fact that the asylum application remained an adjudicator for four years while they were in canada is instructive in the sense that they are left persecuted and why they're allowed to live and work there they're not sent back now they're not however there is no direct evidence in the record are going rather petitioners with which the myth that the direct evidence here that they were not become firmly resettled in that sense they were right i can see their point it seems to me the four year delay just results from having a lot of asylum seekers in the united states and canada share the problem of more phylum seekers than they israel was just full of former symphony violinists working as janitors it wasn't because they were discriminating against the russian immigrants it's because there are a lot more janitorial positions open  open what's more i don't see what's the matter with being a janitor in the new york school system they have about the highest pay of anyone in the school system one hundred plus actually  alaska janitor is usually one of the most attractive positions because it pays well and you get overtime i don't see what's so bad about being a janitor if you're if you're a new immigrant you want to but if i may address that directly  there is credible non rebutted evidence testimony by the petitioners that they felt that their inability to abstain better employment in canada if you will was based on their belief that because they were stability of a country whether it's canada or the united states and are compelled to leave canada because their lives are on hold so to speak now so i want to pursue the cio rule versus the the direct evidence is that there is no offer of a firmer settlement by by the third country not on all fours with this particular case that granted i believe that there were claims by the petitioner in that case that he was subjected to some harassment if you will in the third country or inability to or i'm going to the standpoint of the resettlement rule and this case seems to say that we can take into account even though there is no firm offer of settlement in the other country of factors that the court has to look at and the type of housing that was afforded that was available to them the type of nature of employment that may have been available to them and other factors that that are spe had a right to remain where their application was pending as i noted exercise that right essentially and up they had a potential offer of permanent residence and they were never asked to leave the problem with your case is that the regulation says an offer of permanent resettlement we know for a fact from the record that they did not have an offer of permanent resettlement and cio speaks to situations where  well what it says is that when an alien has been someplace for substantial period of time the burden shifts to the alien to prove that he doesn't have an offer of permanent resettlement but in this case that burden so the question really comes down to having sought refuge can we benefit from their your own unilateral action of letting their application la granted or not the application but the reason we don't have always because titian has voluntarily chose to come to this country and the and the reason they came here well they gave us the reasons i believe one of the reasons of literature was they wanted it they wanted a better  by forty two they say they like because they don't like being called refugees which is what i believe is what they're asking this court to call them so the case comes down to whether or not they can benefit from their own unilateral action when they were never asked to leave ask you  or of of removal in this case of the four nineteen and it's canada or fiji so whether or not canada would accept and i don't know whether or not fiji would accept them i don't know obviously they have they did have the one we're looking at is do the facts give rise to a presumption that they would have to rebut and i think the facts do give rise to a presumption i don't know what canada could have done short of putting the petitioners and wine in front of all the other asylum applications they different looks the same as i think they are well they're slightly different look at the same issue three you know the facts of each case i think is the point is that if you have anyone who's been in another country for a what we have here so you take all the facts that are that alluded to before the that they have food clothing housing education free health care they're able to practice their religion those are the facts that give rise plus the for your stay to the presumption that they would have to report and i