my name is steven scrivener i'm in the attorney in private practice and i'm here to speak on behalf of this young family we're here today based on a petition for review filed by th  various issues that are pointed out in my brief issues that would be raised on appeal in that presumption because of the type of ineffectiveness you're claiming yes just  the law the way the asylum and withholding of deportation law was applied by the judge however the showing of prejudice i believe needs to be there's a presumption and then something more has happened before the burden so there's a presumption to present in your favor yes or no but you have to make them additional calling the for the burden falls to the government  presumption necessarily and that's exactly my point my generally were presumption is raised goes to the other side so again rebut that presumption that's a logical confused you can see that at some point you have to make least you have to make a showing that at least you have a possible ground for relief case because this is a situation where the opportunity for appellate review has been absolutely denied and the point that the deer in your court makes is that in such extreme circumstances the process is called fundamentally into question and prejudices presented on that basis well you know we're not getting any we're not really only you have to make some showing right and if you say for instance on the possible ground issue putting aside the burden on your three it's fair to say that the issue was confused by all parties during the deportation proceedings because these individuals were from laos and there was such an obvious claim let's talk about the whole program right at the first and before the immigration courts and unfortunately this young is have never gotten enough percentage to make these arguments directly to the board of immigration appeals in the form of an appeal better and there's no thank you very much judge considered the arguments of the petitioners from both asylum from france and from laos and as to the board the board also in their decision and its decision said there's no evidence to suggest that the songs face persecution in france now does that mean there's no evidence the record well the evidence is percept forth the facts were set forth by the immigration judge there's been no suggestion but i suppose you couldn't report some of the facts that are not that it went on for five years but it is their obligation to go to the tapes and point to some specific instances otherwise the presumption of force the transfer there's a there's the presumption that the transcript is  free doesn't apply it otherwise and in fact in this case the immigration judge took the unusual it's not extraordinary stuff but here we sit with a different prisms we start with the presumption of proof which is not the ordinary if they have now is to be a different appeal from the motion to reopen this should be an appeal from the merits of the decision have you ever argued that they were entitled to appeal the merits of the board board considered their arguments and rejected them on the merits what's the difference between that  that doesn't rise to the level of such a substantial restriction on the farm resettlement for especially here but that's the argument i understand point of view you're i do not understand the petitioners to be making that argument i understood them to be making the argument that the persecution that they faced in france substantially restricted the conditions of the firme is absolutely i would be in fact we attempted to settle this case two years ago by going to the district director and asking for asking the district director to join in our motion to reopen once just a little bit  nothing to lose as long as you're willing to do it with all right we'll give you another minute thank you i'm not even sure it's necessary to drive this point home but the government seems to think of the federal courts should an individual seek review from the board of immigration appeals as we're doing here your job in trying to review the the board of immigration appeal assessment of the issues involving asylum is severely handicapped this is just no substitute for the appeal process itself and i think that firmly settlement the confusion about firmly settlement