is still pending because of their children who also requested asylum so that case is still pending basically there are three forms of relief  that they are seeking asylum in withholding equitable stoppel is for nancy currie one of the petitioners and repaint ring for the three of them regarding the asylum in the withholding  based on the immigration judge's decision and it was unclear whether he made a credibility determination based on the government's brief it appears that they do not question the credibility and therefore since it would be determined that they were credible whether they have the stablished a well founded fear of persecution in this case we believe that they have they suffered death threats they suffer beating attempted kidnapping rock throwing they were afraid for their lives they fled their country the immigration judge's decision and basically he just states that they didn't know who harmed them where they were harmed what dates and what actually happened when they actually did give specific detailed testimony regarding the threats that they suffered and the harm that they suffered this court has held in the ashcroft that threats of serious harm particularly when combined with confrontation or other mistreatment may constitute persecution well let me ask you what evidence is there in the record that was suggest that they judge even in his own decision on page eighty four states that there are that there are these extremist groups that the government cannot control who was also that want to run your clients were asked about whether they reported anything  who went on the stand and explain that he is aware of the christian problems and that these things do happen but you still have to make some link to the government not to and well it i think the state department report  indicates that question so many other non muslims are guaranteed the right to worship openly under the turning in constitution correct but when you have the extremist elements that the government is unable to control it doesn't necessarily have to be the government that is doing the persecution here in this case we have the muslim brotherhood and it was clear from the record that the government was not able to control them there are instances  immigration judge himself laid out in his opinion that there are exceptions to so basically you know they they stated their testimony was credible they did there are the few that decision the judges clearly found that what they were asking for it was impossible to submit so the question then goes to one was the government error which would have been an equitable sample argument appeal and if they would have done that if they didn't ask for documents that they should've asked for she could have filed within the correct timeframe and she would have been eligible to adjust her status in the same fashion that her parents she couldn't have succeeded at that point do we really want people fired you know claims that are meritorious well exactly and i mean you know because i'm always kind of happy ones lawyers tell me well you know the reason i didn't  had i couldn't in good conscience file it because i couldn't have prevailed but then on the other hand if we come back around and say well you needed to file it and then asked to state even though you knew it must have meritorious it there it does kind of create a catch twenty two here while my experience with the b i is that if you don't have an approved case and they do not they in order for them to revamp it they need an approved petition even in immigration court when you have for example a marriage with a u s citizen and it's basically a matter of the government just approving the view's the petition a lot of immigration judges won't even wait for that and they say no we're not going to do that you don't have anything available today you know you're denied so realistically for the government to state that we have an option of filing with the board of immigration appeals and they would even consider staying the case if the you know the eight you in the future i mean it just number one she would have been but today this court has to determine that they are eligible for cancellation and so that's one part of it the second part is that this court may state and what the government is are not even out yet all we have are just memoranda of what the the board of immigration appeals and what the immigration judges should do in this case but the final regulations are not yet so there aren't really any the opposing party whatsoever because iraq where they are entitled to that form of relief and i have in the briefs is is it just nancy that request to repaint brain or do they all know they all motion the real i d act wasn't out clear on the pre iraq rule as opposed to the iraq and basically technically and legally they are now eligible for the repa morning and may please the court jonathan potter and we have the attorney general position in this case have not established past persecution in jordan and therefore there silently must fail the state department reports are very clear that that there is not a pattern or practice of on the part of the government of jordan of the persecuting people that are of the christian faith this was in this case never we like to address a real quickly i think that the claim that there that there was an average credibility determination in this case that's not what happened here with the with the immigration judge said if you looked at the evidence and he said it goes to weight i find some of their you know testimonial questionable that but that goes for the weight not not to the the facts and whether they were credible or not so yes we believe that the immigration judge in this case did not make an adverse credibility determination he just sets down their testimonies a little sketch and therefore give it less weight than i would if i thought it was totally believable looking at what happens with a currys in this case we have george curry that's extent of what he claimed that the persecution he received and he admits on all three occasions he did not report this to the jordanian government then we have curry whose claims that she was harassed at college she admits that she continued attending college and actually graduated from college but that sixty eight of her restaurant and then there's nancy curry who claims that people are throwing rocks at the windows and once again these were muslim men because they looked like muslim men because they were wearing the dress of muslim that's the start of the persecution in this case that just simply does not rise to the level persecution that's that's most harassment that things have not degraded over there as far as the treatment of christians according reports and that is so recent i don't know what impact that would have on any of this right now i have not heard anything you know we've not heard any noise about that as far as as christians are concerned we just heard it's really destabilizes of the governments as far as it goes well obviously that explain to me why you want more than one why the petitioners want more than one arrow in their qui from their standpoint they have permanent legal rights l p r status right now right and but they also want a cylon they want to succeed on their asylum and what advantage would they have to it's always better better to have more than less and i think that's exactly what they're looking for well now moving on from the asylum charge that the two areas that i'm interested in discussing with you are the  with nancy because she got her visa denied and so she went through the process of peeling appealing out and eventually i guess she got it and your position as i understand it is she should have filed during the time period and asked for a stay what if she really if there was no marriage at the only marriage would be if you have a visa  that's an application that that would put her kids on a whole and let the agency make its decision but to sit still and sit on her hands and not do anything well i mean can you really let's she didn't do that and that that's your preferred course and i understand why you don't want to you know encourage people to do otherwise that it was she really not diligent in pursuing getting her visa i mean can we show other lack of diligence on her part i don't think that's that's the case or i think it's it's the cases that we want to use more than ever start channeling people into practicing law and exercising their rights the right way tightening up the whole immigration process is very important to the government as well to us as to petitioners that's one of the things we need to do in tightening up the process of making people practice law not sit on their hands not sit on their rights and do the things that they have to do to protect their rights service that i think is meritorious in fact we're doing that more and more even before this court and other courts across the country is let's let's let the process work itself out this try to rein granted well your honor i can't speak for the board but i can only say if i bet on the board i would agree to that motion if she put for the facts of why she thought she should receive that now she couldn't well yes your honor in that's once again that goes back to the so my earlier point about trying to tighten up the process in trying to i can understand why the board in this case was frustrated by a very late and to really to get things together i can understand that and that's why i think it's very defensible for them to the knife the most real can of course well i guess but you know from our perspective you can't have people on a trip back either you know if you're darned darned if you do and darned all of them they have or could have addressed that issue an immigration judge could address that issue they felt exhausted as you know and this court has no jurisdiction over that issue agency has now given the opportunity to address issues this course been very clear that we're not going to allow things to be raised for the first time in front of this court of what the islamic fanatics would do to his family if you went and complained of these people i mean your fear of persecution and you know that you have a bomb with fanatics and if he goes and tells the government and the government will go and they said to him if you go and tell anybody we're going to kill your family then obviously he has a right to not go and tell his family and the fact that the government is minimizing the persecution when there were clearly death threats there were either of you would when depending on how the fact finder resolved you know and he's made some arguments and you've made and you know it would probably be a s i j either way the i j a when i could see myself in the same position under these facts to some extent and the other issue i just wanted the asylum for it to be granted is basically not for the parents at this point it's more for the petitioners because the parents would go through inundated with petitioners filing stays because almost everybody has an alternative form of relief that they're just waiting for that to come about and regarding the repapered my final