finding by the agency and as a result started quietly qualifies as a refugee because she qualifies as a refugee she's entitled to a couple of very significant legal presumption the first legal romania it would be reasonable it would be reasonable to expect her to relocate the combination of these presumptions translates into a presumption eligible for asylum the government of course has the opportunity to reflect these presumptions i mean if the government establishes that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that  type of these issues are to one form of a full and fair hearing where research who would have the opportunity to challenge the reliability ever any rebuttal evidence the government many challenge the sufficiency of any rebuttal evidence and also have the opportunity to counter any rebuttal evidence persecution are the state department recognizes it is important because of the mystery of who has suffered persecution at the hands of the government and was separating flarm at the hands of a government official at the time she left so that is why it's significant that there is a government participation but so far if i may with reported a lab report there's some discussion of it in order to believe and the county where mr flu reside it's in the process of county but it's not in the introduction so i guess we could if it's not an introduction i don't know give a lot of reasons why we should take that position but you're right the fundamental issue is why she wasn't allowed to rebut the nine hundred ninety nine report and it matters to me precisely because of that for example the and why would that was relevant to her case in the our position is that there is a continuing harassment of religious minorities that does not constitute a fundamental change of circumstances that apply to her situation or no you know you know we don't agree we believe that even though her analysis is incorrect with respect to the nine hundred ninety nine report again i have to state that there is governmental harassment of ultimately she adequately raised the issue for the da she exhausted her administrative remedies and it was not was ill advised for them to file a collateral motion that would have been considered something as a matter of discretion for the v a to rely on a country report that had not been introduced during the hearing before the i j a and we said the prejudice was the petitioner might have been able to show that even though we  child of harassment and evidence of government harassment in the one nine hundred ninety nine report extended to other religious minorities including the pentecostals she could have further established that the issue in romania with evidence of why of religious minorities kept you going to be wonderful to the police corruption and the police abuses that are rampant in other words she could have  hospital for three years and then died in the hospital before and then never was returned to the family so mr cook is testimony which was found credible was that her county she was known or family was known to have suffered past persecution as a pentecostal family that they were known to have a conflict with the authorities and that was part one of the reasons why this police official was focusing on her and reasonable required is something that id is required to consider whether or not it's reasonable to expect the op looking to relocate and issues with respect to reasonable those that are really relevant in this case the fact that mr bush family is in the united states the fact that violence against women seems like an endemic problem in romania and the fact that social harassment is still facts and did you have a reasonable opportunity to respond yes and only if the answer to that is no she did not have adequate notice no she did not have reasonable opportunity to respond do you get to  and this court has held and rightly so that that is only error if she has no reasonable opportunity to contest  what we did why she should have a chance before the decision is made in her case through deal with the change country conditions in the report and show how it affected and what i don't understand is why the government did not ask the b i to remain or ask the i j a to reopen as soon as the i j a came out with his decision argue decided the case based on something that did not exist when the hearing was held i would think it would be incumbent on the government to say to the i j  decision maker taking administrative notice for the first time on appeal and then announcing it institutions so that the alien in that situation has not had noticed or opportunity to rebut and your argument doesn't work in this new world decision that you well it doesn't work in this particular case because in order for the board to have done what it did under its regulations it could only been several examples of why she thought it was not sufficient to rebut the change country conditions so she utilized the board of field exactly you should which was to say that this was error that she was prejudiced or harmed by it and most ninety nine report and if she wanted to go further and introduce new evidence to try and address took over but she had that opportunity to counsel she wasn't allowed to introduce the new evidence your argument seems to be because a motion to reopen is discretionary and disfavored and under the due process clause the petitioner had a right not merely a discretionary opportunity to introduce evidence on the  agressor be distinguished because that was about to be i e taking a rest and this is about the i j a taking notice and that seems to be precluded by drudge thomas his point that under streamlining  a decision becomes to be a decision so what i don't know where the room is with all due respect to each i think we're talking there are two different kinds of motions to reopen and i think we appreciate that will clarify if i can explain the procedures here the first time in that case that the sandinista government had been ousted that there was a new president and made certain conclusions also saying that those shows she didn't have a well founded fear all of this was done and this is i think critical to remember by the board on appeal with no notice to the alien or opportunity to rebut or respond before the big board issued the final administrative noticed that was the closure of the administrative proceedings what this court said w final order a motion to reopen which is one type of motion to reopen that they can make asking the board to go back and reconsider its administrative notice so that because it was because he only wants to rebut it right the fact right and the answer is you don't have you don't have an articulated agency decision saying that c very you also have case all that says however that there is a presumption of regularity you have case law that says you will review the board's decision if it raises unusual or novel issues and you can look to see whether the case was properly streamline articulate that decision it's not what you want to do our position is however that didn't in this case if you were to review the streamlining criteria as you say to see if they could if they complied with that the even though the i j a i would have decided this case in circles but for the ninety nine the floor at that there was no prejudice because she should have decided against with or without the ninety nine course i suppose one answer is that you do not have an articulated decision by the board here showing why it's found no prejudice showing why it's felt that there was no unfair denial of opportunity to rebut and you could remain on to the respond to that and i say under the equal access to justice act it looks like she mentioned it in the opening brace well ordinarily what happens is we wait a decision then they make a motion for attorney with them and it doesn't really matter to me whether the ninety nine report is or is not subject to a showing as that  make no difference in her case or that it would what matters to me i think and tell me if there's a different way to read this is if i understood the i j a right whether she was right or wrong about the ninety nine report and its  that is directed by the agency  decision as you would say made more evidence as described where doubt she would have been making an issue of constitutional violation then making it an issue of discretionary grace and i don't really think that would have been i would