persecution it's been twenty five years or so and your client was cambodia what is in the record that finding that he is  substituted for his predecessor john ashcroft as the attorney general the attorney general was named as one of the respondents in this case thank you counsel i would agree with counsel for the appellant the district court jurisdiction over the hay vs she is correct that there is no requirement statutory requirement that is that judicial remedies be exhausted there is however a production requirement and that was discus in casper cortez as well as the more recent decision of playing l a i n g versus ashcroft which is at three seven zero after third nine ninety four that's the ninth circuit case from two thousand and four and the understood the final order of removal based on aggravated felony to encompass collateral issues such as relief from removal and before the you know what quality cases the court routinely issued orders to show cause if the order of removal was based on an aggravated felony as it was in mr she wants case so i think that the court has to it has two options it can either  petition for review was filed so that it would be timely that the petition for review would not have been timely a file at the same time as the heebie as because the time had expired by then but the original petition for review that was filed was timely ye if it should not file the petition for review i think we might be talking about a different circumstance when exhaustion but she did file one in a timely fashion so i think those are two hours into court invited mr to want to just missed his petition for so i'd like to say first of all it is not the government's position that mr she won cannot prove that he suffered past persecution because he has no memory of it the government's position is that mr chairman failed to prove past persecution even though the individual with the most knowledge of how he was treated in the labor camp that is his mother offered no testimony whatsoever about the treatment that mr  life past persecution was suffered by the family and i think fails to distinguish between what this what the evidence is and the record regarding this particular family and the evidence in the general knowledge of the  or did they receive asylum or how did they get the refugee stand you know i don't know your honor i don't think it was an official asylum claim i believe that it was a refugee i think after the war that there was a different program in place but i'm past persecution based on the evidence in the record based upon his testimony that he was subject to weapons and and various forms of maltreatment for over a period of almost four years the problem is that they have the opportunity to put on evidence about how mr xi one was treated and in fact how his mother was treated and there is very very little at the respondent's briefing pages two through four there is a discussion of the totality of the evidence from the administrative record on the question of how they were treated by the khmer rouge this particular family most of the evidence is from mr she wants a father who was separated from the family during the time juan and his brother and mother were together but the men were separated from from the women and children so mr two wants fathers experiences aren't particularly relevant and mr chen wants father can't testify about what happen want but his mother could have and she didn't so we're left to speculate about how mr she won was treated in the campaign and you i don't believe that there is a basis for finding past persecution unless the court w to find that every person in cambodia who was not a member of the camaro rouge was persecuted turn in this time period because the testimony demonstrates the testimony of mrs ms teary i believe her name is it's something that the  attached in the excerpts of record and also submitted below that the camaro rouge had the social experiment and that they moved everyone out of the cities and they moved people into labor camps and into forced agricultural camp they basically disrupted the entire population of the country during that time period there is no evidence of a record that mr she wants family was put in one of these camps because mr she wants father was in the military everyone was put in one of these ca tension circumstances have changed the government did submit the state department report on country conditions below and in the excerpts of record torture cambodia presents a problem because of the very circumstance you describe on one hand one can say well if you grant relief here that it's not a magic gratifyingly for everyone who is in the country or most people in the country at that time on the other hand it's difficult to say well if someone is kidnapped and put in a camp it would be all right if it were an isolated circumstance another country but because it happened on a mass scale in this particular country we can excuse them i just find that difficult analytical what do you think how would you approach that i agree that it's a difficult issue i think that the approach the government has taken in this particular case is to say that if mr to want to step back to past persecution where's the evidence they had the opportunity below to put the evidence in to describe how he was treated to describe the circumstances of his three years eight months in this camp and they did not there is nothing and that's how you you get around it i different story in terms of our house the sun that's a bit troubling well i think also the court has to remember that we're talking about a young child and it's not at all clear that that children are mistreated they may i don't know what the culture of cambodia is it could be that you know communal child raising is the norm and it's that children you know run around and take care of themselves during the day while their parents work in the field i don't know i don't know that this child the next case on the oral argument calendar ye