honorable judges counsel i believe on the one here is you with respect to jurisdiction over the timeliness aspect of the asylum claim since the government's letter of april thirtieth two thousand and eight the only remaining inherent in changed circumstances is hearsay the alien is over here and the change circumstances are taking place in the country of persecution those circumstances must be communicated in some fashion reality and who is going to be here by a person who probably might not even be alive at the time the case comes trial now i think i'm correct you can correct me if i'm wrong i think th hearings even outside of the changed circumstances context and it may be hearsay and therefore get less weight but i think is admissible i think you're saying this will absolutely and here's what here's what the immigration in this case the immigration judge categorized the evidence is hearsay and then diminished it to the extent that it was worthless he also failed our judge circumcision older women of their female victims she said she feared circumcision in this case the immigration judge said that for some reason the petitioner wish to two and i covered it in one twenty seven of the administrative record you will find no evaluate in a female genital mutilation as it relates to this woman and certainly more troubling you will find no reference to it to that faction of her clan and would be persecuted you just have no ability to review this kinship matter because the board of immigration appeals and the immigration judge made no mention other only after all of this error did we come to eviden entire case it is with this mindset and contacts that they pierced a principle was injected into this hearing number government quarrels with burdens of proof i made the point that the clear and convincing evidence standard was wrongfully applying to the there is no question whatsoever that the that the immigration judge accepted hearsay statements as evidence twice what's your response i like to start an instance where we finished up what your response to the argument to be i applied the wrong legal standard i don't believe they did apply the wrong legal standard and the reason you have to is when you go back to the underlying facts and i believe that you have to go back to this you say argument in fact you know in order for for withholding to fear for there are going to have been a withholding there must be a clear probability that is that it's more likely than not that the petitioner would have suffered would suffer record of what occurred while they make the thing statement that the immigration judge makes was very clear from the immigration judge's decision is that he found no evidence whatsoever t and then you're saying and the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of your side that even if they had applied a different standard they would have come to the same result i don't think we can do that used to say we're required in various ways under threat of all kinds of bad things to s pretty clear in earlier cases ventura included for concluding that we know what they would have decide i'm finished with saying i know what they would have decided because i've been instructed i'm not supposed to say that