please the court jason vanocur for petitioner in the stand and ask i just want to i guess point out a couple of things i think everything was briefed thoroughly in this case one of the things that's really going on here is there's just a the government is ignoring the nexus claim based on religion going so far as to chide her for not bringing it up in front of the board of immigrations while pointing to the portion of the record where she was bringing up with the board of immigration so it's not clear what else she was supposed to do well women at the me i j level she made it it looks to me like perfectly clear that she did not belong to the christian religion she didn't really belong to any religion she thought there was good stuff in all religions but she was not had not converted to christianity didn't like muslim religion like m was required to take up that issue because it appeared in her brief but does not appear in the record without her making a motion and say look will you please reopen this because this lady is now a christian her argument to that of course is i was a christian all the time and i didn't put that in front of the hijackers i had reasons but i was always a christian so that undercuts their position even more so i just put that as background to explain why it is the government is quote ignoring this issue well and i think it sort of came through in your question of should she go to the board of immigration  actually really not to take not presenting evidence which raised the issue that was ignored on that lower issue with the i a e a than the v a chose to adopt the immigration judges opinion in this matter that she's now a christian woman how how does that help her own health or why would that be had decided that she was entitled to really because of the change circumstance rule that would alleviate the one year time bar the him of the order adopted by the board of immigration found two bars to her asylum claim one being firm resettlement which we briefed and believe was an error of law  i mean there's more but just for the simple do you have any religious preference who denomination belong to well yes i actually prefer christianity and islam yes but i'm not officially i don't have any religion right now i don't believe in any religion official religion but i'm just exploring would be persecuted and or tortured in the can actually it's torture because the official government penalty for confers and to islam to christianity is death so that was one of the things that was not considered under the convention against torture the fermi settlement issue where order adopted by the board of immigration adopts the firmer settlement but goes outside the bounds of my circuit law and looks at the totality of circumstances which is not the test in the ninth circuit so the reason for barring a firm start on it is an error if there is direct testimony which can be the applicant's testimony found to be credible which i don't think there's any dispute about the credibility of the testimony  that she wasn't offered permanent residency then the government has to offer direct evidence to prove its case that you were not firmly resettled here they offered length of stay other non offer base ok so she says she had asylum and she was there and she had a permanent residence permit she just had to renu it from time to time she could work at any job she could doing those of the other things but one remitted it's unclear exactly what she what type of refugee status she had the they contacted the consulate and the consulate couldn't determine what type of refugee status it was was that help the government it helps her because because if the direct evidence in the case is she saying she does not have permits residency that would be the only direct evidence in the case saying that she doesn't have permanent residency and they found her to be credible i'd like to research into all of this i would like to ask this question though ok so in the absence of any contrary direct evidence there can't be a finding a firm or settlement  under the law it would be almost they would have to be reminded down to find out further whether those stat whether she had permanent residence status under those documents that she had ok or was given  and the evidence is fairly clear that she allowed to this residency to laughs voluntarily she was under no requirement by the german government to leave the term and government did nothing to force her hand she just relinquished th she had a residence permit in germany yes and she had travel documents from germany is that right as yes is that i believe that's correct and those are the things we say are direct evidence and they satisfy the government's burden so we set a normal yes so she has those things so then the problem her residence lapse i guess you have to argue you know what happens to that evidence or who has the burden of going forward  being offered the firm resettlement it merely shows that she declined to take it and what she's now doing is basically forum shopping in the united states and the purpose of the resettlement bar  discourage that so at this point i guess the burden would be on the petitioner to show that she was never offered firmly settlement i'd like to touch on the religious conversion issue because there's a much more important issue that i didn't see addressed when petitioner was arguing and it's the notion that there was new evidence presented before the board of immigration appeals it wasn't new it was clearly contradictory but it wasn't no she says that and two thousand and five she said she had no religion she preferred christianity over islam and i believe the judge hernandez quoted it directly but then when she went before the board she said she had converted to christianity while she was in jail and if you look at the record carefully she was in jail for four months and it would have been in late two thousand and three so what she's telling the board is that she had converted to christianity before she went to the immigration judge to whom she told i don't belong to any official religion and we think that is very critical and moreover it shows no motivation for the for anyone in her native country to want to torture her because there's no more no apostasy there and so we think that's a very important issue that the court should should consider any of those constitute extraordinary circumstances and so that the i g immigration judge didn't abused his discretion in finding that i don't know how much they went into the matter her medical history is extraordinary the court has no further questions that would conclude our presentation thank you renewable country doesn't grant permanent residence in our fact it was someone who could travel from mexico to the united states didn't get back in time because of monetary concerns was revoked and the court found that he did not or was not able or wasn't offered permanent resettlement just because he continually renu his stay in mexico he had originally had a restricted stay then had a broader stay i think it was from an f m eight in mexico to an f m three and then an f two would have given him a permanent residency similar to what happened here and the government is not sure what happened as far as the last thing in the documents that the government screwed burden to prove that and here is unclear what happened and that should be