mean those are the three issues that i'm going to end up analyzing humoral my oral argument here before the court today let's take the court back to what the immigration judge found in his decision the decision was made it clear its two thousand and four immigration judge broke it down into four not relocate within the country of iraq because the community already small was decimated struck war and had only decreased in numbers problem regarding this case i understand that this also part of the filing by the i j so i don't i don't think we can disregard his existence well the report that the judge used was the report from two thousand and three said over and then within five months of this capture is when we went to hearings but the judge at that time said that well you know there's a provisional government they're trying to combat insurgents and i'm going to find i think my colleague was alluding to and that is you know we all have the benefit of hindsight at this point as to what's happened in iraq and we know that through newspapers and blogs and the media generally but this is a legal proceeding and we're dealing with want to be an immigration judge found some time ago based upon the facts that then existed and that's of course all we can do if you have a an ongoing standard is you never can put anything to bed because you know i just keep going and going and going are we pretty much restricted in our analysis to what the facts were as viewed by the i j in accordance with the regulations that existed at that time however incorrect they turn out to be in hindsight  were court of appeal here were a number of years down the road you know i gather what you're saying is we need to re manage it because we as individuals based upon her own independent observations of what's happened since that time are aware that there are some problems some we say we're going to send this fact because we know things have changed but the system can't work that way can it no your honor and it doesn't need to get to that because the petitioner show that he would be tortured military at that point you're saying that the fact that the united states military was not able to prevent insurgents from killing torturing maiming people like your client is what the government is doing and i'm speaking hypothetical here i think history will tell us whether they did but what if the united states government was doing all it could through its military and then provisional authorities to prevent this very dangerous bugs etc etc who are running around and every are you saying that in any country where the government doesn't stop all crime that a person who has been victimized previously in a criminal enterprise cartels in mexico it's real clear from the news that that's what's happening are you saying that because someone may have been tortured by a because they didn't cooperate with the drug gang there the fact that the government of mexico is not capturing these people and stopping them from torturing them allows someone to claim the benefit of category made in the united states that if they go back course the regime is gone and there's some evidence that he's put into the record that he legitimately fears being tortured upon his return to iraq of us what happens to him and he'll be tortured he says because he is  torture needs to be taken off to be carried out by the government or somebody acting i guess through the government and also that the second area that they need that immigration that really doesn't see that is the conditions are equally dangerous for all persons living in iraq and three the partners state country report conditions report the two thousand and three profile in iraq and various news articles regarding the capture of saddam hussein and the general conditions in iraq both before and after the fall of saddam  two thousand and three i believe you are they as i said that the evidence consisted mainly of the department of state country conditions report which do in fact have evidence that there are numerous persons being killed or tortured including then the u s troops they come over there and just protect them from all right well muslim groups to come over there it's not like they moved back and this is some peaceful area they're moving back to escape the persecution that they're experiencing and they're staying inside their house and the  church bombings and other persecution specifically targeting christians that go outside the country commission report that's already part of the record and was thirty two and in this case there is any question thank you very much both sides reverses holder now submitted her decision we've got one last case on the argument counters counsel are both counsel here florist versus holder