given here because the decision of the agency is clearly erroneous in their relied on old law and did not even address it under an appropriate standard exactly a stable target analysis our laws also clear that we should let the board group that has expertise is responsible have a first crack at looking at it do you think we should do that in this case even though we say generally we should decision came out now whether they should be given a second chance say well gee we kind of blew it we should have looked at it differently that would not be consistent with any precedent that i know from this court this court has always or i think that's what the immigration judge understood it to be but that was not her testimony she very specifically testified that she had been told that if she either overstayed her allotted time or  that you can go directly to that you can also look at the fact that the american consul gave her documents to leave the country even though he knew he she had no right to come into the united states telling her that she'd better not overstay the time that she has been a lot of her she would be in trouble basically and those documents the government has lost or has refused to produce and we believe that  very relevant evidence that should have been produced we would know exactly what the counsel said but he said something to convince the people to allow her to go on the plane and then she had the sealed envelope to give to the immigration authorities in san francisco which has we have never been able to get access to so i think that there's a very strong inference there that the consul knew that she would be subject to prosecution if she remained and that he was going out on a limb to give her documents to allow her to return to the united states even though she did not have status to enter we are in the process of filing a mandamus to get is the law the ninth circuit by the way we approach it is the law until it's over ruled by an invariant court another panel doesn't have a right so what is how can we say that the law of the circuit wasn't agency to address in the first instance those factual questions which directly bear on that legal question and that's an especially important this case where you have heard testimony somewhat shifting testimony on the one hand about the possibility of future persecution on the other hand you of being timely trial but in terms of the issues in a great many cases as in this case the attorney who represented the person below is not the attorney who's doing the briefing and intel you get the not an excuse for raising the issues properly because the there is no case law that i know of and it is also not the practice of the board to limit you to the issue stated in the notice proposition well i'm saying there is no case one way or the other but i know it is the practice because i've been doing this for twenty five years and i have never had anyone complain that the issues were not properly stated in the notice of appeal if they were raised in the green there is  while she was in was quite a bit less bad than many of our cases she wasn't jail she wasn't being many of our cases say that being jailed and beaten once or twice i'm just reading what the had in vietnam it was not because she was an involuntary prostitute that she was being harassed it was because she had been a prostitute and the question of ok so we don't like former prostitutes i something that but you have a person here who didn't choose to be that so that's not relevant perhaps to the persecutor but it's certainly relevant in deciding whether or not she merits asylum so i think that the concerns