morning your honour's my name is sally barents i am the counsel appointed by this court to represent mr hooper humanist appeal to be i its decision to dismiss his asylum claim with me as my colleague virginia boster we'd like to split our time today since we have a lot of time i'll deal briefly with the jurisdiction  conviction what they argue instead is that because he didn't appeal that issue to be i say that it can be resolved here but i don't think that's the law i think under ye this court still has to decide for itself whether or not it has jurisdiction defines refugee as a person who is unwilling or unable to return to their home country because of a well founded fear of persecution on account of race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or political opinion well maybe let's just sort of go right to the you know the point because i think all the judges serve him oh you're with facts here that there's a couple of things i mean obviously a lot of people were killed here but in particular i know you know that mr  stated that he did that no one knew who killed the nephews was there any testimony as to the facts which would indicate that these deaths were politically motivated actually it's opinion addresses and refers to the portion of the record that relates to the killing of mr hoops nephews however i think the more important point relates to mr anything in the record that starts  to there is evidence in the record mr who testifies that his brother was killed because of his connection to the philippine military his wife also testifies that he was killed by the  because of his connections to the military furthermore there are there's a newspaper article in the record that discusses the fact that the n p a was found to be responsible and found no motive  to go after all or who these were all separate unfortunate incidents but nothing to show that they've being persecuted because they belong to the same family i agree that  clear that it was the m t a used his family's land and the m p a who repeatedly threatened to kill him and his family but the brother was killed because of the military not because he was affiliated with a family that was being persecuted i think that it's it's not clear that there was one particular connection to the military but that time seems to be imputed to the rest well i guess probably the best there are a lot and all these isolated things that there are so what what is your best evidence that any of the threats to family members were made by a political group when you pull out what you're but give me your best argument on that i think the best argument is really the context of the situation the land w school after he graduated from high school he then fled mindanao making it clear that he refused in fact renewed on his agreement and refused to join the forces then mr who we can use brother and sister were killed because they were suspected of being military informers finally minister who he was then threatened that he was going to be next it seems clear that in the context of all over time provision is not covered by two forty two eighty so when are you suggesting that if the due process claim is raised it cannot be considered but we have no jurisdiction until all those other section two forty two eighty two d it clearly provides that if there is any type of jurisdictional limits with and section two forty two that the court is still bound by those requirement that may be true but it has to be exhausted because the statute clearly states that the court only has jurisdiction over constitutional questions or legal questions if there is no other jurisdictional limits covered with in section addition by congress that is being construed within the past year or two when when when was it added year on it was added in two thousand and six thank you yes your honor and the decision to ramadan is clearly distinguishable from this matter because ramadan looked at the one year time bar and that is something that is a new development because the one year bar requirement meant was a new development what we have here is a forty two before the standard reversing only when a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to conclude that the decision below was erroneous historically and traditionally the question of eligibility for asylum has always been under th substantial evidence standard and therefore congress clearly construed as being a factual question because your time is limited there's a couple there's something that i'd like to get down a little bit the nitty gritty of the actual facts here mr and that be i order stated that  e had failed to identify his particular social group yet in the brief in his brief to the b i stated respondent family has been persecuted including the confiscation of family lands fight a government official and the killing of four close family members why was this statement not sufficient to identify who believes family as a particular social group your honor it's hard to stay part of that is because the lack of clarity concerning presented talks about religious groups so to the extent that he stated that he'd be able to identify a particular social group if anything it was because she did not specify i asked you what social group he was not because your family can't be a social group b testimony and evidence that that would support his claim here the question is does the record compel a finding that is contrary to the board's inclusion and the answer is no because of his inability to provide there and in fact his own testimony belies his claims that he has any specific fear of persecution he states i do not know what they are called or who they belong to but they are continually harassing my family in terms of he has not done so his claims for asylum basically do not compel a finding that is contrary to the board's conclusion here so even if the court were to reach the issue which the court may not because based argument i would also