long line of cases that say the question whether a person qualifies for either change circumstances or extraordinary circumstances is one of the facts and therefore it does not fall under twenty or twelve fifty two a two capital d and it's just not reviewable so i don't know how you get around that it seems to me this case at this point is about withholding or the convention against  briefly address that issue of the guard through the jurisdiction of this court has held that however in this particular case what our argument is is not so much effect but the way the application the law was and i don't understand the difference i mean you said that but i i don't see what could you tell me one sentence what the legal issue is you think you're bringing before us well what what the court did in this case and if you look at the case i cited the case of mombasa which was cited by this court this co situation was better it was normal came normal but there was just you know did they write the right opinion you know are there really is no the kinds of the kinds of change in mongolia that would support relief from the one year rule i'm having trouble is still figuring out what's what's the legal issue the legal issue is if the courts had said that there wasn't a change condition than that would be acceptable if the court says that there was a change condition the applications timely but the change conditions reverted back to a better situation and you're you you only have to say what the courts and sort of interrupting what the courts and was facts later and they applied it here perhaps they misapplied it here but it's still a question of fact applying to law at my also say i'm just looking at the board decision it's a generic statement and that he did not show that any exception to the filing deadline applies to his case then they mention a couple of things lack of knowledge of english  ability to apply and he says though those don't constitute extraordinary circumstances well those are obviously not factors that deal with anything that's going on in mongolia and then in the next paragraph they say we agreed that the july two thousand and eight riots in lumbar don't reflect change country conditions so i don't see where they even if this were the right rule i don't see where they have failed to touch all the bases that what they reap what they refer to  obligation to say there was a change or there wasn't what they said was it got better later so we go back and in essence what i say it's an isolated event and they anyway i'm going to segment the second ok day they say look you know we don't think this is good treatment but it's not bad enough to count it's economic persecution and the rest of it is  so far off base what should change in reading the decision you have of the courts in the pending saying well the economic factor was not enough to bring it to the threshold of withholding and then you say the beatings were not enough to bring it to the threshold of withholding and then you have the other allegations he makes it was not enough to bring the threshold of holding however you cannot take a person's life and segment of into certain portions you have to take what was gone against individual over the course of this life and look at it from a complete picture you have mongolia which is a large country but a small population of two million people who belong to a very unique group of people he was arrested on several occasions he was beat on several occasions use the night an economic opportunity and several occasions so we would argue that you have to think whole picture you can't place in face his in the vigil life and say this is why he doesn't qualify in each individual case for for now though if we were looking at withholding and we were focusing on the future if we found that this wasn't enough for past that's not the end of the discussion you still have is there  e future likelihood of persecution his parties in power now and things do seem to be looking up in m training in the soviet union at the time in jet propulsion fuels came back his friend who was died in prison after being accused of killing killing him i am now remember that so we would argue that he good morning and may it please the court room puffier you know for the attorney general unless the court has any further questions about the one year bar and that absence of all genuine legal issue and i talk about past persecution testified that he had been arrested on two occasions and had been to car straighted twice for seventy two hours but he never sustained any injury that was severe enough to warrant a hospital visit or any doctor medical attention i don't know what should we do what mr cole is talking about and look at this in a global way look at look at the whole history of things he's  an advocate for the democratic party he just repeats pamphlets he's arrested on number of occasions you know i'm glad he wasn't hurting worse and as he punched in the face he's arrested again horrible things happened to his a troubling picture it is troubling but the board specifically addressed the i g is finding on that regard the board said the immigration judge this is on page two of the board's decision the immigration emergency have some rule that you know until somebody starts breaking your legs you know it's not going to consider it persecution seems to me that's not the right way to look at this book well if you look at the cases that we've cited in our brief and distinguish between the ones where or past persecution was found and where is cast persecution wasn't found that this court has held that to but to to police the boundary between harassment persecution is is the board's problems that was the booker case and and you are correct we agree that the standard of review in this case is substantial evidence to support the agency's findings so when you consider the three cases we've  do all the things that happened to dan dan and only until you do something worse you know this guy is the dan damn person detained for three days without food interrogated his face get swollen as a result of the beating so i h change to a radiator fed youth he was punched in the finger was broken did none of the mistreatment that the petitioner here suffered approaches that so i think it's the court can be assured that if a finding of no past persecution in this case to affirm that finding would be consistent with that the court's jurisprudence but it just point the petitioners burden has to show the communist party is is not in power and all of his fears of a future persecution are vague and speculative i mean but we're not arguing he doesn't have a subjectively genuine fear arguing once he's back in mongolia the only connection to the united states government would be the existence of our embassy and well on the tour or whatever other consulates we have around the country but this does anybody ever ask whether these people successfully reestablish themselves so i mean the whole process goes forward and they're sent back i'm not aware that they do i can tell you that if they don't they can be apply for asylum and come back i mean what if he record it's his burden at this point to show that a clear probably for a future persecution it's all from his testimony testified that he's a he belongs to an ethnic group and of his son yes that that true that he did get a phone call but again i don't think that the record shows that who the caller was or the caller identified themselves he thinks it might have been the communist party but it's not on percent sure with regard to once he is out of the country there's nothing he can do if he's back in mongolia if they if the congress to come to back to power ends arrested and harm he is stuck with being in that situation you can't walk into the u s embassy and request anything because you fit into the calculation you have to look at a person's entire life in sa knew there was two teeth broken what if there was only one to cope with that not qualify for asylum signing was in jail for a period of two weeks but mr  party clearly everyone agrees he was targeting the judge fun for me because of his political party activism and we have to look at the full picture and how he was person all right thank you very much thanks to both counsel