replication for political asylum holding the removal of the immigration judge in this case denied my client calling for political asylum on the grounds failed stablished changed circumstances justifying her on timely application for relief and  purely factual issue an example would be where the late application is justified on the basis of change country conditions other findings concerning change kind to conditions however inherently involve next questions o to whether these victims actually occurred and is it also an illegal question as to whether those undisputed facts materially affect the applicant's eligibility for relief on the basis of a statutorily protected ground in of women who don't dress properly as the immigration judge determined i think at that step one in your analysis or your wishes the court should approach this with the to say that and i've never thought of pronouncing it that way i kind of like that reality as opposed to real life but that the real i d act goes back him wipes out the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the prior law  but congress that questions the constitutional and legal questions yes your honor they didn't say constitutional questions common legal questions and questions that are mixed of law in fact and isn't that with the best isn't that what this is from agreeing with your honor at what i'm saying is when you have a mix question of legal fact if the basis of a claim of error is not the factual component of that next question then it becomes a purely legal question i guess what you're saying is that we have the question of the applications of the undisputed facts were not the undisputed facts and the fact is found by agency to the law is a question of law that ought to be reviewed under the real idea that's my position  that immigration judge's findings of fact work that were disputing the immigration judges interpretation of the statutory basis or relief based on those and challenge facts and therefore we're not  or that the speech was even made or that what she said would have invited any sort of attention these would be factual determination however erroneous which we would concede we could not challenge but in is which is in most cases in this case we believe a legal question which permits the score to review president threat posed to mrs ramadan by islam and streamers on the basis of her public speech the united states is indeed on account of an entirely different statutory grounds than the threats made to her by islamic extremists in the past namely the political and religious opinions she expressed in the speech where she denounced limit limits on women's rights in egypt concerning them actual merits of this claim to really miss ramadan maintains that the recent threats a teacher a lesson for what she said in this country as stablish was at the very least a possibility of first persecution accounts of the religious and political pinion sees facts expressed in the speech and even if this court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to view the denial of this is ramadan asylum claim evidence that unidentified individuals have continued to contact both her friends and her parents since this threat was made or never determined when she might return to egypt as outside of the record of this case and so it's a preference and then an immediate relative that wouldn't be something that we would think that would be something that should hold up this proceeding your hon court should still have no review over the asylum aspect of this point and generally speaking we've had in the past cases in which we've said there are certain matters that are committed to the discretion attorney general but there are other matters for example statutory eligibility that are connected to or questions of law that we can fairly review why is this something different and we understand that the ultimate determination might be made by the attorney general on this case  to his or her satisfaction but but you know in terms of saying well these are the kinds of circumstances that would provide eligibility why isn't that something we can well start off your honor it's not somebody coming in the door with an application just deadline should be lifted me should give him discretion to do that other are different which is different from a situation where somebody comes in with an application and who was probably application or  who coming in the first instance with the eligibility determination and this is something that the attorney general should have the discretion to decide whether if at all he wants to  lift that one year ban and the congress has clearly given that to him and the interesting thing about the wording in the statute is that doesn't use the word discretion as the statute passed in other areas what are we to make of that then eligibility requirement that was clearly defined standards are set out in the statute maybe something like that but i don't know if anything right off your honor are off the top of my head  were clearly not shown in in this case and just as a fallback argument if you decide to reach that but we do believe that someone in the audience with a camera do you have you have permission from the court to use that camera in the courtroom ok would you turn it off cameras are not permitted in the courtroom without prior permission of the court and when you leave the building i want you to check with court security and i want you to show them the images that you took in the courtroom  ok sorry for the interruption you're in oh let's take another example of this though if it's a true question on mix facon law and law that would political activity in the united states constitute a change circumstance and under any that might be a question of law and the question the factual determination of whether the sufficient my might be well connected to the attorney general's discretion if you disagree with that whether a political structure stands well i think that the discretion comes and the amount of evidence quantum of evidence type of evidence and so all of those things build to a discretionary determination o something if we would just dealing with a particular term and somebody will score playing over whether a particular term had a specific meaning let me let me we don't have evidence you put on if you're saying that your activities political activities can and can never constitute a change circumstance under the statute that would be a legal question over which we would have  discretion in order to overcome that one year determination and it should be up to the attorney general to decide that because there's already been the one year deadline that you would look at each applicant who comes in and it is his full package that he brings and the attorney general has discretion to determine the full presentation that he makes to try to overcome the one year bar but that should be a case by case analysis and i would like him almost even if it's not just about two and a half minutes removed yes it might take a while before she's able to get back in if she is able to get back and yes there will be another if she got voluntary departure there that would be on the other one year but let me talking to some friends and she was saying the same types of things that she said before that then the immigrations found that should not qualify for stalin or withholding or mention your honor and i believe that the now normally one would think that's like change circumstance because there's been a death sentence imposed on and after he's left and so i say after that one year bar so i suppose the i j a says well i don't care doesn't you know i don't i don't like the book and and  that's i don't think anything you write after you leave the country can serve as a change circumstance wouldn't it be and next question of fact and law that we could review from what standard but i think what you're saying is you don't think we have jurisdiction even if the adjudicator is clearly arbitrary and capricious is that what you're saying again i would say in this context where the one year there's already a one year bar that the amount of evidence the type of evidence and that is something that the immigration judge should be able to think that's because of that and it's clearly a discretionary determination this one and finally the statements made by my client since coming to united states are not the same statements that she made before the only statements she made in the record regarding women's rights were made before prior to  one when she was a student at university of alexandria for nineteen years she lived in egypt without any repercussions from those statements the problems she had were exclusively related to her dress so to maintain that these statements are the same problems she had before is a misrepresentation of the record thank