categories in three different ways if you like to address each in order st category of issues relates to her motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in her native country of bellew's within that category i think the which would suggest that the entire education was in error simply did not apply were doing is simply did not apply matter of as he and so i think at a bare minimum what should occur here under this st category that i'm discussing is that this court should remand to the b s a at a bare minimum to adjudicate her motion to reopen base and change country conditions under the correct legal standard and torture convention relief for ms gabble and so at a bare minimum given that she asserted a new theory of relief which was that she had sustain serious domestic violence by her boyfriend in bellerose mr alexandra who this was this was the theory after it was determined that her testimony that her family had been killed was made up determined to have been the product of fraud over many cases she came in with the domestic violence allegation and so how exactly was her nd counsel in affective with regard to bringing that forward he didn't fully investigate the underlying facts of her case your honor and he should have gone and our theory is that he should have gone beyond simply trying to address the evidence that the government had proffered to to demonstrate  about her family being murdered i wouldn't exactly use the word lying your honor because it because i have a duty of she should tell her to hide her family was killed quote i'm afraid to go back to dollars because i'm afraid i will be killed who came in to try to basically defend her against these charges that she had in fact made this whole story grabbed your honor so i guess i'm not clear on how could that lawyer have rendered ineffective assistance by i mean i assume he did whatever he could to try to blunt the force of pretty powerful evidence on the government's side as to the fact that your client did lie i just don't see how how was she in a position now to blame him for having to having done something wrong when she's the one who got herself in this to think that you feel your lawyer had i guess done this more thorough interview of her and the list of the information i gather that you have now and he had told her listen we need to abandon ship on this crazy theory that you put forward that's now been shown to be a lie let's have you testify instead to all these other things and hope to god that i j somehow will believe you and what possible likelihood of success could that of how and in light of what you've already done first your honor as occurs in federal court rooms all over the country on a daily basis there are witnesses including ones that the governor government proffers in criminal cases  cknowledged that they have during early stages of earlier stages of proceeding including propositions made false statements and they attempt to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the jury and oftentimes the jury accept them so that it is possible that she could have done that what you suggested your honor and and had the fact finder in this case creditor this is the nd one of like to make is that because these are not discretionary forms or belie seeking with all the torture commensurately if there is an objective component to it and that is the country conditions evidence has to be evaluated independently of component that gave in our view mr chalmers a heightened duty to do a more fulsome investigation and presentation than he did  supporting her motion to reopen made significant concessions about the false was made and we acknowledge that there would be a great difficulty in trying to undo that if this case were to somehow go back to the or later to the immigration court incidentally your honor's there would be a new immigration judge assessing this if it does get to the immigration court level because because  is dead and buried so to speak from jurisprudential standpoint because you know given the separation of powers principles that cases like the thomas and that i guess from your client standpoint go to the reliability of the evidence that the government brought forward and now that she's basically acknowledged that actually it was all everything they were trying to prove is true i just don't see how would we undo why would we undo that finding now that makes no sense to me and now is there's a certain bit of what i would call procedural pedanticism in this organ that you're on about i do think that the separation of powers principles are important that it ultimately should be the was admissible didn't object to the facts and also even if there was some error in that the interpreter's conviction documents were later admitted and i don't think there can be an argument that they shouldn't  and none of the points raised by the petitioner in their opening brief have any merit to them st of all with respect to the standard of review as we point out in our brief the standard of review language that the board used is essentially identical to the matter of s the and the cases that the petitioner is making in making a distinction without a difference secondly with respect to the evidence presented the petitioner didn't show prima fascia eligibility for any relief counsel i'm going to get right to the issue that i have some concerns about the petitioners declaration stated that her ex boyfriend had beaten raped and threatened to kill her throughout their six year relationship why doesn't this qualify as this allegation qualify as persecution  in a way that would justify or perhaps even require reopening here's why having filed the frivolous asylum application she's no longer eligible for asylum after all she's eligible for us what's holding of all withholding of removal requires a showing of clear probability of future persecution and her she would have to show that she would be targeted again by the ex boyfriend right she would have to in order for it to prevail as a matter of fashion at this point to distort the compelling evidence that she has a clear probability of future persecution or torture in order for this court to determine that the board abused its discretion to do nothing reopening and she can't show that not simply the past persecution itself which as alleges quite serious it's puts also sirius's is the record illustrates in your declaration illustrates is that mr alexandrov has significant ties to the any had threatened because he was aware of her political activism or support for the youth group juber that opposed president alexander shango he had threatened to turn her in to law enforcement authorities so there's also problems of domestic violence like the abuse has could could entitle women to be classified as a particular social group so she you know our