all the while failing to fully develop the record which she was particularly charged to do given that my client appeared before her press say now these three legal errors briefly are that she required that someone in the government or acting on behalf of the government torture my client which is not the standard of law under the convention against torture second she made no inquiry into the likelihood of future persecution or torture which is a stock quickly under those types of regulations and which she is charged to do and finally she held that in order for the rape that my client suffered to count under the asylum laws it would have to be reported to someone in the government or to a family member now with regard to the first arab law she held and i quote that the torture convention requires that someone in the government or acting on behalf of the government torture the respondent let's let's assume that as we read the convention against torture and we try to match that up with the remain and so that that appropriate standard can be applied let me ask a different question these are the first of your issues related convention against torture the third one i think includes the asylum which has another issue which will have to reach with respect to the one year limitation one of the issues you raise which is an interesting one is you had the record for the i j a and then you had teeth of materials they got presented to the  and under the streamlining procedures the decision of the i j a is the decision that we're reviewing so but i'm curious as to whether if you submit something to the be ira that's now still part of the record and i was in this argument about it but in the context of this unusual streamlining how do you get stuff in front of the specifically treats this particular question under the under the streamlining regulations nevertheless there are numerous cases many of which we cite in our brief and others which i would be happy to give you right now where it's made clear that the immigration appeals look at these materials i have all one way to do it i mean one procedural way to look at it would be to say they were in front of that the i a e a but in streamlining  and the decision is the ideas but an alternate way to look at it is if they adapt that i just decision then they implicitly rejected absolutely no mention of it and if they said absolutely nothing they simply sort of firm without opinions with respect to that issue i think that they were entirely ignored now of course we also submitted materials on a motion to remain and because those materials had been new and we don't know the answer that question what what standard of review then are we to judge the question of of the kind of their consideration or not of those materials that would be an abuse of discretion  into it into account these materials and the presumption of the b s regulations are that it will not consider additional materials unless there's some kind of a showing well  which you heard now it was a case of a homosexual with a female sexual identity somebody who says he thinks and acts like a woman there's a wealth nongovernmental it homosexual the female sexual identity from latin america would be entitled to refugee status here now the reason i think that case is properly before the court is because there he had multiple prostitution convictions spanning seventeen years the case was largely based on an allegation passed refused to talk about the amount of the way the petitioner needed to proceed that the petition is ring forward was unavailable at the time of the proceeding before the immigration judge not to say that except for the two thousand and three state department country reports for el salvador which i will concede ma of commonly known facts such as current events where the contents of official documents the board will not engage in fact finding the course of deciding appeals a party asserting that the board cannot properly resolve an appeal without further fact finding  just a little a little confused as i understand it the petitioner submitted for additional documents together with his brief and then there's a packet of some seventeen additional documents now does this does this motion remember that cover all might let me ask you you know you might be right in terms of the way describe what's what is it isn't before the board but what if we can we figure that out and i think you see what i'm saying is we don't know this stuff went to the board in the brief so it is part of the record some extent but these are very well it's it's the it's part of an official record whether it's in we don't know is whether the b i a basically declined to take note of it because it's improper in nature and procedure or whether they looked at it said doesn't matter to us because really the i j a you know everything is there in the eye jay's report and that's enough to face the dial and so i guess my question is should we try to because it's all these little rules that we have to understand but it's clear after streamlining that the pop that the b r d does not engage in fact finding they won't do it they won't take additional evidence except for narrow categories of so called administrative notices i think it's quite clear that the material that the petitioner offers basically prints of web pages from non governmental organizations reporting on facts that were not widely publicized evidence here because none of this stuff is new in the practice you have now got a lawyer which is which is great doesn't mean that the information was unavailable at the time the hearing that i rate exceeding one hundred a week in the immigration field and so when you say we shouldn't parse things actually that's what we have to do every day when we try to figure out where does everybody land in these regulations and you make a good argument as to what the practical consequence would be so i'm i am actually interested when i think a little more your time if you don't mind with the course god himself is i'm just trying to understand so what you're saying is that this would really be my rate of horribles wouldn't be quite so lengthy but you know i think in fact the idea behind streamlining is to allow a single judge to take a look at the file to satisfy him or did it does mention these documents and it's apparent like that that there's i mean there's some question i asked mr boyle about that maybe i can answer that question first there were for documents that were submitted as part of the motion to reno and then there were a larger number of documents which of which were submitted directly with you to take a look at that no we wouldn't even that to you or your honor because you are reviewing the order removal here and all the materials up to that point however the the board can take notice of that fact the same way a transport can take notice of commonly known facts and evidently evidently chose not to when we know that because we have a board order affirming the i j a and adopting the i j a the order as it's on we don't we don't know what the board did we have no opinion into that we know that they rejected the motion to return but we have no idea which were which statute in there that there are but these are all materials that were available all that with available at the time that the case was presented to the i j a not only on the but yes most yes how do you respond to the government's argument that if they allow the procedure