it's what do i find that in the record i'm sorry i didn't read that that there is a fear that if she returns to china she would be automatically sterilized because she had she still unmarried you still are married ok your theory is that if you go back to china as a single person who's given birth early that because of that she would be sterilize doesn't and is there something in the record that tells us other than her subjective view tells us that women who are unmarried and give birth to a child out in country conditions that comes about while the case is in administrative litigation or even before the court we're talking about a change in a personal circumstance and the  say that notwithstanding that personal fact of life that they still have should have been given an opportunity to respond whereas the board simply took notice of this personal fact also point something out this is not an unmarried woman she was married in a traditional spillages ceremony or like in every case that const before this court  and when she went or they went to register the marriage that was refused because both families were in serious to readers for various kinds of fine for them or haven't we recognized a connection between these marriage registration requirements in china and their population control policy in their cases yes yes that registration seems to be i hate to put it that way but it's never spelled out in any of these cases but it seems to be nothing more than or less than the state recognition of the marriage for the principle purpose of according benefits housing schooling etc the marriage can occur before or after registration sometimes need to be outside the record but you know we see these cases every day sometimes the registration occurs first so it sort of looks like it's permission and sometimes it occurs afterwards so it looks like it's an after the fact asian and recognition of something that seems to be what it is and this case doesn't show and i hate to say it but i have never seen a case where registration is marriage it age couple they were going to register those people whether they were married or not because they were under age to marry this couple was are they and she bore her child as a woman age and outside of china which the reports seem to indicate is considered by ninety six patriots like a free child there aren't any disabilities that appears attached to  if i understood the position of the board on this it was that the petitioner had focused attention and wanting to prevent an abortion of the child she was carrying yes that's the claim then excuse me and then the board took the position that due to the passage of time that's no longer a problem so do i understand correctly the the  before the i j a in the ward were not for some future conception but were to protect the child she was then caring that she would not be sent back to china to have it aboard and that the board said that is no longer a problem and so there's no reason to grant asylum now is that all there was to the petition before the board yes your honor because counsel indicates that in the record there was something about of fear or of sterilization if you goes back and that didn't square with me with what i  read of the board decision so could you clarify that i don't i don't think it's in the record before the board i think that's something that's been the sorted here a claim that we addressed in our third argument about  a failure to exhaust is a new claim what the court all right so they they have the option of going back and moving to reopen and starting a new claim but the board of the decision the board has we have before the board here it only deals if i understand you correctly with protection of the child she was then carrying and that child has now been born that is absolutely correct your honor and the record will fully support it so as far as what was before the board that was the only issue yes and if they now wish to assert another issue that if they go back with or without this child she may have penalties or whatever can they move to reopen on that issue they could try your honor they could try to because there's no time limitation on a motion to reopen involving an asylum claim as long as it involves in facts ok all right that clarifies it thank you today well they had no opportunity because they did not involve any change in country conditions anything that they could try to address this was a that's why i said the beginning it's unique and if it's a personal described file a petition and say i'm pregnant i'm going to have a baby in x number of months if you force me to return to china i have a legitimate basis and fear that i w will be forced into an abortion for you here are the reasons and then claimed to in the alternative if the village doesn't get to my case before my baby is born then my position will be th if i go back with this baby that i will be forcibly sterilized is that with a petition or supposed to that would have been a better way to do it but they didn't do that here your honor and there is in do i understand from the context of your response to judge thomas this question that there is no obligation on the forward part of the board to allow reopening to present the the grounds of fear of forced sterilization they in this case is a new reason that came about along the way did they once they receive the decision of the board which in essence said well now that you have the baby this round's is no longer workable didn't they ask the board at that point to reopen so they could present this claim that they're talking about here today i didn't see that your honor i don't think that's in this case at all we can ask council yes no i'm sure it's not here  logical conclusion of your theory that no forced abortion cases can ever be recognised because in fact it will always take more than nine months for the board to reach a decision wade i don't recall your honor whether whether or not that is the case well that's what they said in rather that they that there was an argument that is now moot that there is there is no pregnancy to be terminated that's reversed circumstance here yes and they said no you can't that's not a moot it's argument we're going to recognize why should the same logic apply to this circumstance if it's a capable of repetition well it may sound flippant i guess but but it's an immigration case and not why don't you start by telling us if you did tell them after the board to reopen after you receive the decision that did not