the judge found the petitioner to be credible all the evidence all the documentary evidence was admitted into the record so if that is the case and did not make any adverse credibility so the quote so that has to be taken in and it was certainly detailed enough to the extent possible that that she's on a blacklist and it's from someone who works at the airport and had connection with the past armenian she's been in the united states for a long time and and that her ties to the united states are known and that she's a christian all of that and the reports talk about the greater harassment  questioning not black or well but but the things is what happens is that she could do this that it's clear that she was the should be taken into prison i mean that is that is what's in the record as to as to what happens with when they are taken into when they are questioned by people connected connected with the government it is the revolutionary guards are definitely not respect as of human rights and so it's the risk of being taken into prison and happily and having the french connected with the prison there and also what are you relying upon to support your argument that the risk of being imprisoned equates to with serbian authorities and the court found that that would be a that that person definitely had a personalized risk of being harmed it's the issue is that we're looking us well i would say that it is that it is important because of the anti american animists in that country how do you explain that you live there after the one nine hundred seventy nine revolution the take over our embassy there  for ten years essentially but her particular fear comes also after she left the united states it's when it's after she left iran that she received a summons to come into the neighborhood it's it's after she left iran that she found out she was on the blacklist so it is far it is true that she did have she was called in for questioning before she left and around the time  that she was working and then after that as she did not have a she had a part a period of not being disturbed but it's after she left that she has the concerns what's your response to the government's position that moderates are now in control submitted in the with the with the appeal that showed that the conservatives still have power so that the that was something that the judge kind of hinged his decision on was the fact that moderates came in but it but it's clear in the in the in later reports that were submitted into the record on appeal that that the conservatives still hold a lot of power so based on that she definitely needs at least a ten percent chance against syria she were to be returned wouldn't you agree with that not necessarily the two thousand state department report but of the record undercuts her claim in that regard reading in the press constantly reformers are not really having an opportunity to reform because of what is happening here and right now our relations with violence however this court has repeatedly held in many decisions that general conditions of violence but widespread human rights violations do not constitute a grounds for a claim of language she had described the summons to appear before the local revolutionary committee has respectable i suppose that in nineteen thirty six rule of the new statute was applied to her and the extended time from seven to ten years would be applied to are correct yes i well i'm sorry could you repeat the question on that let me ask you this what was the think we have to look at whether the immigration after a page ninety one but it has to do with motions for continuance and there's really no difference between a motion for continuance and a motion to advance it's all about changing the calendar and while it is true  and this is what was denied the equal thirty first march thirty first at midnight was the cutoff point and she never had that opportunity to even do that and then just one othe