really hard to say he she ignored or didn't understand this but what i'm concerned about your honor is that his concentration on surveillance of them which were clearly outdated law and those of the that and whether he would be orderly refugee procedures were available in third countries now the question of whether orderly refugee procedures were available and closely asked the question of whether these procedure actually functions the petitioner demonstrated that in turkey greece and mexico or the procedures were not available or that they did not function i don't see how he didn't demonstrated that was reasonable though doesn't and that's a good point your honor but let's go through each of the countries and all address crease in just a second let's look at turkey turkey simply doesn't grant refugee status to non europeans and so he never had an orderly procedure available to him to return to turkey he i j so the contrary correct well but he did cite the turkish country report which stated that at least he said the contrary he said that now they are doing it regardless of whether you're from europe that's what he said are you saying that he said misstated the talks to the mistake when he made that u s department of state report which normally is not submitted in for temporary asylum to people who are refugees even if they're not from europe that's what he said he told me that's erroneous on this record is that right yes your honor and one of the conditions of pool or one of the criteria of who is whether there is an opportunity to remain permanently in that country and even if turkey you were to give this petition or a temporary permit when you look at the rest of the criteria it shows that he can still and should be asylum in the united states in discretion now what was his experience in turkey he went to turkey and he was very truthful because of what other persons who had experienced that country had told him that the police would report return him to iraq and he was very fearful of return to the country or the place of his persecution so he continued on to greece now how was he going to obtain information about the orderly refugee procedures in greece by talking to person community and they told him you have no chance here you will not be granted status in this country those people being people that he just talked to there but he never did approach the authorities that right that's correct because in order to so the logical place to relocation would have been the united states but when he was in greece those person told him that he could not obtain status in that country and that suppose he had made the inquiry that would require him to go to act contrary to the advice of his friends had given him and to raise his hand basically and see to the greek authorities here i am no matter what my friends tell me i'm going to come to you and see if you're going to deport me or not we'll suppose somebody comes to the united states because the reasonable well what is more rational to submit yourself to a system which you think is going to remove you to a country where you are persecuted or remain safe but hiding in that country people applied for refugee status and out of those eleven hundred people for that you're only sixty two i'm sorry fifty six were granted or recognised as refugees and that's a tiny tiny percentage of persons who apply and so in fact their experience was truthful now the one other point that i really one of the touch here was that the judge said he's going to deny indiscretion because he didn't want to encourage other persons to come to the united states in the similar fashion and i stated in my belief that i think that argument is a moral this for this case should be decided solely upon its merits and not whether it has an  impact on the rest of the community he was not supposed to be teaching and teaching other people a lesson but rather determining whether this person is going to be harmed if returned his country and he found so he found that he had suffered past persecution and that he had testified credibly also i supplied the board of the immigration appeals without unpublished as to his and i know it's not controlling but that decision is in identical circumstances with the same indiscretion whereas this family who has really ties the united states does not those are completely income growth thank you there's no chance that petitioners wife are going to be sent by the united states government back to iraq there are alternative routes for them to gain u s citizenship they have family members who are u s citizens and you know given this that they have withholding a form of all the granted a discretionary grant of asylum however there were significant differences in that case even from a reading of the board decision first of all there the i j a primarily relied on the circumvention of normal refugee procedures and in this case it was just one of the the court would have to find that the immigration judge's decision was arbitrary irrational or manifestly contrary to law which in this case it would be very hard to do because the judge considered many factors thoroughly and comprehensively in coming to the in greece for a year they were able to pay rent they were able to amass a large amount of money twenty one or fifteen thousand dollars to hire a smuggler to get fraudulent documents they you know they could have spoken to an attorney in greece or spoken to immigration court testimony and you know the fact that he knew that both of his brothers were able to do this the proper through the proper channels from greece really sort of stands for the notion that petitioners really you know wanted to get to the united states i mean that circumstances you know the judge considered many circumstances including how many countries he passed through that he was not of tender age that he had no documented health issues that he did not establish he didn't meet his burden to establish that he couldn't apply for asylum through the proper channels and then he did use fraudulent documents to get to the united states so you know it doesn't matter if you wait one more one last it's still plays way in the favor of his decision being rational the matter is that you know we allow aliens to use fraudulent documentation to flee persecution which they didn't and they got out of iraq in the you know they had been living for over a year outside of persecution and when they were living in greece that's when they decided that they wanted to obtain these fraudulent documents to travel to mexico so although they didn't use the fraudulent documents to gain entry into the united states they did use fraudulent documentation to secure entry to the united states and through  mexico and it wasn't that they were fleeing persecution at that time it was a completely separate activity the feeling of persecution using the forged iraqi passport is one situation that got them out of the persecution and then the second situation was you know spending fifteen thousand dollars to buy this danish passport and passage for petitioner and his wife to mexico where the window where they got that money i think petition to testify that he got ten thousand dollars from his father in iraq he had several thousand dollars clear that the immigration judge made a well reasoned non arbitrary not irrational decision and that the board's decision should be upheld in this case and that's all i have