there despite undisputed evidence that during her stay in that country she never had any form of official status or recognition by that country's government immigration judge said of the answer is yes and you can redirect it that way but that i believe that's consistent with her general approach to her situation in ethiopia which is that she never wanted to remain there permanently and she was afraid that if she if she made contact  come into play here and it's i think it's very unlikely that this court would be presented with a situation where an alien spent twenty five years in another country and never had any contact with that government and suddenly found herself that you don't need to answer that question i think to conclude that on this record where she answered ethiopia under the circumstances that she did and worked as a domestic servant for a family which from the beginning promised to help her leave that the sort of interesting question that we've seen in other cases where a country doesn't listen doesn't have what we would consider analogous formal procedures to recognize citizenship and how do we treat people that don't even exist i don't think it's inconsistent with the purpose of the statute or regulations to say that aliens coming from those countries never had the kind of protection that you want them to have before you can say they were firmly settle accepted her testimony and fall about what happened that day the family was attacked by the militia group which way to miss ali had murdered her brother in law during the attack they hurled several insults at the family which the attack was a product of simple lawlessness and chaos and was not motivated even in part by either of those two protected characteristics so the issue for you is whether an immigration judge can reasonably conclude us then asylum is out of the case and i should no parent thirdly here is that the there is no issue before you regarding protection of the convention against torture that was raised in the immigration judge but has not addressed that question of quiet at residence in the intermediary country in that case malaysia a rebuttable presumption arises that firm resettlement was established that an offer in effect had been received by the alien and in detail the burden of proof then shifts to the alien to show that no such offer was in fact proceed all you do in shale was that the petitioners had lived in for three years in malaysia and there was no apparent disturbance of their lives while they were there here you have the following ethiopia or her neighbors there's no evidence of discrimination or harassment of her while she was there and she was able to work she had a place to live she was able to get married she married for the third time while she was in ethiopia she was able to visit her two sons who were living elsewhere and she was able to attend a rendezvous with her daughter by her first marriage was in ethiopia briefly and then returned to somalia her life during that five and a half years was quiet without harassment without interruption the trail presumption therefore arises that she had an offer of firm resettlement her argument is that that presumption was provided that she overcame that because she never received an offer from ethiopia and the difficulty is and this is this is what makes this case kind of interesting is that we know now that ethiopia had extensive procedures in place to protect refugees from somalia they stab at refugee camps in conjunction with the u n high commissioner for refugees to treat hundreds of thousands of people who had come over the border after flatly not true later on she was treated by his thanks to that by saying well the reason i didn't apply for asylum is that i was afraid they'd send me to a refugee camp and she said i didn't want to go to refugee camp because those camps were dominated by a clan from somalia who ethiopia where she perceives that members of the higher castes are going to be dominant and if she shows up there she is going to be again subjected to this day in kind of treatment she has been subjected to in her own country i'm finding a hard  story that she didn't want to go to this refugee camp and i think we can all survived that if the refugee camp is loaded with so already and regarded it as a low caste untouchable group to be abused that she's going to be thrown in there with them in that  you could not stay there that you did not receive a firm offer and i don't think you can defeat that by intentionally not taking advantage of the clear procedures that were in place in ethiopia for housing people and then the but what about  have to address this problem now the clear procedure is to then put her in a refugee camp which then put you right that with the same group in her perception that abused her was a risk i must clarify or are there is not there's nothing in this record to assume that if you've crossed the government she would be sent to a camp that's not in the record she said that that's not in the record that was her perception yes and yes it was that was her perception the regulation i don't was the idea that we can presume from the circumstances that a country was making more or less an offer of a permanent residency malaysia is different from ethiopia during that period obviously her an indefinite stay these statistics on the record your honor that and i've already given you the page site indicating that ethiopia did have asylum procedures in place and did grant applications for the there weren't many immigration judge found firm resettlement in armenia judge reinhart overturned of the court overturned and finding the following things none of which are present here they found that the family in question never lived in armenia for more than eight months at a time they moved constantly they lived  know more than twenty two months are forty four months in question here you have five and a half years he found that while the family was in armenia they were constantly harassed for being out of the john no harassment here he found that there were no clear procedures in armenia for last if you make that finding and we obviously hope you don't but if you do that a presumption arises out of the withholding regulations that the petitioner had just met her burden of proof that she is more likely than not to be persecuted again if she sent back to someone in our green we argued that the immigration judge applied to change country conditions analysis and found that that burden had been the presumption of been overcome by the improv conditions in somalia during the period of record upon review of our brief on the record leave and i concluded that the immigration judge's decision can't quite be read that way that's not a fair reading i think his references to improvements in country  shall the presumption arose because there was no direct evidence in the record either way about whether a formal offer of resettlement had been made the record was silent the record is not silent here this is all we testified without contradiction that she never attained any form of official status in that country she was a stranger to the ethiopian government on that record you cannot conclude that the government made her a formal offer of anything return there and the word right is very significant for reasons that i think judge becker explained very well in the third circuit said deal is right implies something that you can invoke for some kind of protection and if you are living in ethiopia as an undocumented domestic servant you don't have any rights to invoke as he pointed out in the ideal case judge becker you can survive physically in a country for a long time with an under the radar screen but that doesn't mean that