have the facts we've all read the briefs and started them let me ask you a question he was here in romania came here had romanian papers and then willfully did not renew the papers why would you just english the yan which a similar situation where per person had been in france willfully did not really renew their papers and we held they were not entitled to asylum how would you distinguish your honor in case of mr mohammad so there it was he was it was not willful because it was the six months in his visit was extended every six months with no rights to own a property in romania with no rights to have a driver's license no rights to have social security and health social health in romania he came here on a tourist visa with his wife and his wife decided to study and when they decided to study he was under the impression that he could go back to romania at any time being married to a romanian citizen and when they found out that they cannot do that they have to where they can do it only if he goes back to his country of origin i don't understand your answer to  question the reason he couldn't go back is because there's a romanian marital visa lapse correct and i think that if i may i think that is why that was was focusing in on the reason he couldn't go back well the where i'm trying to explain is that he did he did not know that he could not apply from the united states and he believed that he quit apply from any country to renew his question so i j it was somewhat creative and in saying he should go back to his home country and get a visa which apparently he would be able to pick up fairly easily under the evidence we have in the record and there's absurd would you challenge that there is substantial evidence in the record that he could go back for the short period of time to accomplish that and then go romania yes your honor in february of two thousand and eight the runyon government has made their deciding on making apostasy a iranian a violation of iran i understand that but but he doesn't have to go and say i'm an apostate and go to a corner and start shouting believe and in christianity i think the isn't there substantial evidence there's a minister that says that he can actually worship there  there's his wife that event there was a christian couldn't the jury said isn't there substantial evidence that he could go there for the short period of time and secure these papers not that there isn't evidence the other way but we have to look  a had substantial evidence well he didn't your honor because even with the pastor who testified said that everything was done underground and in in a country as a state department report says if you're born christian and it's ok but if you are a convert you turn away from islam and that's where it's recognised people who were born in iran and are moslems all have birthright these they are recognised but people who aren't born christian is different that's why the government the state department or the government actually goes to churches checks i d s to see if somebody is in law's land and in a church so it could be discovered at any time at any of that's right it could be my that's my question my question is yes or substantial evidence in the record that for the short period of time he would be able to do it safely there is no short period of time where i mean there is no safe period of time when you enter a country that it's law make and death penalty is there is no he walks he walks into a rant he doesn't have a sign saying i'm a christian no he doesn't have and then apparently there are converse who do me so the i j a says he could do this for a short period of time and i'm wondering whether there's substantial evidence to support that while you're on it he can walk into a airport with a christian wife and he can't and it's at a country which is known for its gross violation of human rights and there is no rule set in that country and there is no short state period of time for the ones who do the master himself has not gone he has known of several people who were executed when it was discovered that they were they had converted from islam well i understand that you have reasons why the testimony might  he's saying there is no evidence that shows that this person can be any run for any period of time there's absolutely no evidence for that  yet and also your honor at with respect to the interpretation we believe that he was not provided with a competent interpreter and that many of the things that he said were not good morning my name is nancy friedman for the attorney general good morning mr iemma how are you fine thank you much better than my last trip here which was the morning of september eleventh two thousand and one all my was not very happy that we will remember that very a in dealing with section two which ordinarily he's looking for a place within the country where it's safe and he's using the same section  for a safe place outside of the country have there been any cases by the board or by any of the circuit courts that trying to answer your question i am not aware of boards or circuit cases that that that discuss that but i think the difference and perhaps i should have  this a little more in our brief is that the petitioner doesn't even meet the definition of a refugee because he was of course not fleeing persecution he saying is the fourth time he could be there oh i think he would be there safely whereas we have case that say well you might be prosecuted in in one part of let's say in the country but but there are other parts where you might be prosecuted and now i understand the question i'm sorry you were talking about whether he could return for a short period rather kashmir there's evidence they can go live in delhi therefore even though there may be a reason for it i grant him asylum from what took place in kashmir because there's another safe place within their country now the i j a said took that an extrapolated from that that the safe place is not in the country of his birth but the safe place is in a different country romania and i'm wondering and he granted he was extract waiting and he focused upon last habitual residence but i have found no cases where that's been a complex before and i wanted to find out from near with you had any cases either by a circuit court or the board on that issue well to try to answer the question and i think are we are you asking about executing the removal order because i think that's