are seeking political asylum and withholding of removal in this matter i would submit that the record in this case compels this court to grant political asylum and or withholding to petitioners first of all between the time the last counsel let me just say the dates so we're clear the second deadline was july twenty sixth and the b i have received counsel's motion to for an extension correct and next day they get a decision a month later a month later and at the same time they denied the appeal without opinion affirming the immigration judge without opinion they noted that they grant the motion to withdraw no for reasons of the one year deadline this court doesn't have jurisdiction to review that and that's clear prejudice to mr and mrs hancock that they did not have the opportunity to submit this issue to the board and now they have lost that opportunity are those the only facts in that involved genital mutilation of mrs hancock when she was a child that's for thai between the genital mutilation which occurred when she was living with her muslim family they were fully muslim she later converts christianity yes some years later what's the tie between the claim that she's been persecuted as a christian in the years before and when she was living with her family as a muslim i don't i because she was persecuted because she was christian in time but she's claiming that's that's the second aspect of the play now if you look at it from the perspective of perspective of a woman who had to undergo this procedure as a child she then later grows up that's this is not what she wants for her children she meets a man who happens to be christian and they get married and or she converts and then they get married the tie is in her mind and in her heart because this full mutilation or only and symbolic concrete correction for looking at the rest of the credibility issues do you think that you will even if we don't resolve those credibility issues in your favor i think the win or does that mean that it gets we mandated with instructions to do the credibility thing right and now look at the record to see if they will but i think the record does support the his best i can tell indicated two lines that to that argument on page twenty seven of the b i erred in not addressing mr and mrs hancock's applications for relief under the convention against torture motion for consideration of your late brief explaining the compelling circumstances hey they didn't do that so they didn't have counsel you didn't get the extension they were told by then they could file this late brief with a compelling circumstance explained by motion and they didn't do it they that they had this opportunity still file a brief of the appropriate motion and they didn't do that and then we have a decision not just saying they defaulted and therefore not hearing the case it's actually addressing affirming on the merits immigration judges ruling under the board's rule that they could have just said it was to fa they didn't do that they addressed the merits based upon the notice of appeal which actually did raise the substantial issues and how they were going to challenge the immigration judge's ruling and they affirmed based on the record there's no due process violation in that context but even so the remedy would be for about the practices of the leicester jihad and reading about them in the newspaper they claim they were spirit as you said but if that was the wife's testimony the husband doesn't it doesn't really play that the wife said he was terribly injured he says he didn't even have medical treatment never mind to the hospital so it's a very much an inconsistency here about what happened but with what immigration judge also said what the record supports is even if you believe that they were attacked by this a group of radicals assume this the authorities showed up the attacks stopped so like all the claims here there's no basis for attributing the discrimination and harassment they allege to the state we have alleged harassment by the family and we have this one attack single attack by the alleged by the last how do you see the record as far as likely go to future persecution given the parent or perhaps ability of the petitioner to relocate if they did return the past persecution then basically the aliens burden to show they can't live anywhere in the country without being persecuted that's what the regulations if they show past persecution and the burden shifts to the the agency to show that they will be able to move to a reasonable location and there's a sort of as a list of various factors and assessing whether it's reasonable to require them to move to that location in the country so the pen's on whether there was past persecution or not the immigration agency so that in mind donna and other places in indonesia seventh day adventists live are able to practice their religion without without persecution without without harassment and so that there persecuted in indonesia generally it when you compare that to the state department report in iran which shows that level of persecution of congress there is now in the state department report here showing of singling out of persecution of converts so perhaps that you know the record if you want to get her family's actions to the state which i don't believe is supported by the lacquered that is in chicago not all over you know i think they could claim that they will be tracked down no matter where they are but that's really just a matter of speculation which i don't think if they can't go anywhere in the country where they would be safe from persecution as practicing as is that what you're saying i'd follow that i think got to go both ways i'm just trying to find both ways because you're there i think they'll make their only claim about being unsafe as it may be tracked down by the brothers who are upset about the conversion about the make the intermarriage the brothers actions not not the state's action and so nothing in the record shows the relocation i think the state department report also addresses the fact that there are there is internal relocation of muslims into formally christian areas so i think that covers a lot of the country the country is ninety percent muslim so a then the questions we ask for counsel if you can't go somewhere else in the country correct and be safe and that's coming out of the country