everything from the beginning the good morning good morning we got morning and we got your name so and may please the court i'd like to reserve two minutes for every bottle right there if i may and  respectfully i'm asking today for a day in court for a woman who has a rather unique procedural history with the immigration authorities in the united states and i wanted to focus on two things if i may which is whether she in fact demonstrated changed country conditions materially affecting her eligibility for asylum and was holding  and whether she exercised due diligence in light of the false promises made by the government to her so i'd like to start out t see whether the country conditions have changed we have to look at what was available before the court on the day when and absentia order of removal was signed back in two thousand and ten versus what she presented was for a motion to reopen and what the judge had before him was her statement of persecution from one nine hundred ninety seven or nine hundred ninety eight where she  d instances of harm caused by private actors on the local level in her country and then the judge also had a country conditions reports u s department of state country conditions reports from two thousand and three which in fact stated that their relationships between different religions in the country were amicable that's administrative record four t admitted into evidence which essentially deals with the situation in the country for the year prior to which is two thousand and eight and that report same place stated that  government large really respected religious freedom and while there were some discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities the government largely respected religious freedom now contrast that to what she has submitted in her motion to reopen well first of all she submitted evidence of significantly tightening law on religion that made it practically impossible for small protestant groups in that country to exist because of the high number of registered members that had they had to provide to the government  interethnic violence throughout the country hundreds of thousands of people displaced thousands of people that all kinds of ethnic minorities being attacked by the majority in the country and that's not a that's not related to their religion and that's just interethnic violence and also evidence that new legislation that was promoting native language and  access to employment opportunities for native people is limited employment opportunities for everyone else for their remaining minorities in the country and then also that there was a rising violence against christians in the context of that interethnic violence and i mean protestant christians as well as the growth of islamic religious extremism in the country  those were the country conditions evidence she submitted was for a motion to reopen i don't want to talk about notice but i don't want to force shorten your argument on the religious persecution but you wan to also save three minutes for every bottle so with that i'm sympathetic to the fact that she had this lawyer and then when she had to go overseas she didn't know she wouldn't be coming back  she didn't know what was going to occur there in terms of domestic abuse and other things however the b i a e a says even given that that you don't have equitable circumstances because she waited about four years to do anything in terms of the motion to reopen so would you address how you would get around those findings by the way well your honor first of all and we argued that with the board she in fact relied on the false promise by the government which was the fact of issuing a guest of user to her to come back to the united states very clearly she wasn't supposed to be sure that she was in admissible for ten years that was a ten year bar on the entry for overstay and for the fact that she had an order of remov and just like in her previous procedural history that will likely left her very confused and she had a lawyer although then he was permitted to withdraw right know she was due back in two thousand and t the difficulty is she didn't do anything then for this long period of time and during that time how many times was she in and out of the united states and i think to analyze this case though let's just get that on the record first how many times was she in and out of the united states after that three times so apart from whatever guest visa she did or didn't have she's back and forth in the united states three times but she doesn't do if that is that the sympathetic side of my brain totally understands but that places are in the situation of many immigration petitioners and the last suggests that that is not an excuse so is there some other legal principle we can look to that would help save her situation well i think to understand her case you have to talk about a cycle of abuse that she has experienced in that search country where she followed the father of her two u s citizen born children right because she is she has suffered from severe some severe domestic violence but she is the mother of his two children and he asked for her to come back and apologized and i think she simply was uncertain whether she would be able to stay in ukraine or would have to flee country and yes there's incidence of c v or harm and then false promises reconciliation and her trusting she is you know a family oriented person she kept coming back you may want to reserve the remaining time she yes she kept coming back to that situation until enough was enough and that's when she finally came back to the united states and decided to see what she can do about s while in the ukraine she traveled while in the ukraine edition er's response largely is to assert that she was likely confused but that's why we have ministry records we statements and evidence at no point in her statement does she say she was confuse the council after she came back to the united states the last time how long did it take for her to file that was thirteen months between sizes well she didn't know what was going on and this is why in ten and tonio martina's this court said well when you participate in earlier phase of proceedings you know there's a negative situation in this you have a common sense requirement to stay in contact with the core in your lawyer and you have to wear part of what petition wouldn't ignore is that in her own state and she says and fall twenty capricious when we know there's a large loss of time which she could have done something but didn't turn change country conditions alternately partygoers evidence doesn't demonstrate material change in her part of just her nor as an article she herself submitted it was a june twenty ten article so this is the this is about the time she actually left the united states before her hearings were completed at that point that statement is on a r two sixteen again this was submitted with her emotionally open it discusses ethnic and religious violence and discusses rape of christian women time to point to situation is merely amicable is not accurate and fact part of what petitioner says about anna nicole relationships is with the islamic community in russian orthodox community made an error in marking her passport as asylum granted all that occurred though preety ten so yes there was a problem the government made a mistake but that was the whole point of having the hearings in two thousand and ten her attorney knew there was an issue this was the whole point of the upcoming hearings that she missed do we have our own raval how this happened she applied she had a hearing stamped or five eighty nine as referred which would mean referred to the immigration judge and an m t a should issue somehow instead passports were stamped in nine ninety four was sent so undeniably given a mistake but that was the whole point of the twenty ten hearings figure out what happened so when she comes back to the united states on the basis of that stamp that she gets  and the united states know at that point the office cia asset asked her to return the i ninety four the travel document which she had been traveling and in fact she said again in claims that she entered on a nonimmigrant visa we have no further evidence about that visa validity anything about it all we know she claims that she received a visa so we know nothing further beyond that she didn't submit her new passport or the new visa or anything that she claimed that she had so unfortunately there are a lot of unanswered questions but it's court repeatedly recognized its position as burden to demonstrate that well your honour's number one thing amicable real relationship between religions is reflected in the two thousand and nine report which was submitted by the government for that november two thousand and ten hearing and that was the only report available at that time everything that she submitted in her motion to reopen happened afterwards or she would find out about it afterwards she was not in her native kurdistan she hasn't been there for a very very long time she traveled to a certain country she left the united states on a refugee travel document and not on any stamp or any any obscure document or something unclear very clearly government issued her refugee travel document and by the time it was returned to her it was expired so that was useless to itself and certainly it's understandable why she wouldn't want to bring her u s citizen children here back to your brain because of all the violence and russian invasion that took place in that country that's not in the record but it's pretty much common knowledge and i think her case should be analyzed in the context of you know gross negligence by the government in keeping her in the united states for many years issu ever entered and her situation as a whole was was what happened in ukraine and and the uncertainty of what certainly on the changed to me disputable thank you thank you like to thank both council for your argument this morning we can go versus whittaker is submitted our next case for argument is united states versus door