the next matter on our calendar is yang versus jefferson the sens states the i jane b i incorrectly interpreted the statutory language to require the petitioner to demonstrate change circumstances of that materially affect each of the underlying ins which lead to in consistencies so if the court is so inclined to have a more consistent application of the law so be it the pla language of section two zero eight eight two d of the act requires a petition or demonstrate change circumstances that materially affect her eligibility for asylum only it does not differ differentiate between separate claims within the same application so once the petitioner demonstrated credibly as the i j a found that there was changed circumstances that affected her claim under her religious  portion of her claim then there was an exception to the one you're filing and all claims fall within that exception so when she found my client credible regarding her forced abortion and the changed circumstances was totally unrelated that's true but others how does the group of a changed policy in a part in a province in china of christianity have anything to do with retroactively making one claim is exactly right and the congress had that opportunity both the law and the regulations to bifurcate if they wanted to know how to do that when they have to correct and they are telling us that this is clear but of course the history or anything else beyond the language that would help us decipher or discern congress's intent no i'm actually not prepared to do that today it's not a problem with maybe a flood gates maybe people gaming the system by saying hey i've got change circumstances here so let my all the application code tell that i understand that concern and that is a concern for the immigration court the immigration court's job is to determine the credibility of each and every petition who comes before them and if somebody is created enough to try to fabricate something i think the immigration  afterthought what would what would your answer  i would defer to the legislative history and your client presumably would lose based on that that's correct but in this situation the legislative history of the plain language is what we're asking the court to look at she  cardless she's entitled to withhold withholding of removal why he is granted that that is to be clear there's a cloud of remove all that hangs over her head ok all for the rest of lawful permanent residence in the united states she may be required if i say ask her to actually check in every year every six months if they ask you why because technically there's a removal order against the council if we can all you know what's funny i'm used to things being elevated because nothing's ever at the right level for me so this is just marvelous good morning your honour's stephanie had this for respondent this court should reject yang contention that her conversion to christianity ten years after she arrived in the united states allows her to revive an unrelated asylum claim that she could have but did not put forth in an a statutory scheme here because we are looking at a one year bar that congress decided was going to be in effect for asylum claims and when you look at what the exceptions to that one year bar were one is an exception an extraordinary circumstance which is not in play in this case but that had to do with an applicant's inability to actually bring forward the asylum application and then the second has to do with the scenario that presented here we are there is some type of change that materially impacts the applicant's eligibility for asylum and in that instance it makes perfect sense that congress would have said listen it's important that a person file this application within one year but if something happens to that person and now this new asylum claim has arisen or something has happened that  i mean the statute to some degree i think presumes in some ways that there will be multiple claims for a basis for asylum well and i think that the fact that maybe there isn't right that the fact that there maybe isn't expressed language about these other or the existence of an earlier claim that could have been brought actually gets at congressional intent showing that within where the changed circumstances to be   the exception say an application for asylum may be considered if the alien demonstrates either the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum so that's it doesn't and that's where the getting at the desegregation that your honor keeps bringing up that's where the government's position is that when you look at the overall scheme and the fact that congress did establish this one year deadline and said if you don't come forward with this claim then you lose the ability to do so has been as i pointed out in my earlier question someone all over the map on this question on this issue in terms of interpret the language is that correct it is correct that the petitioner presented an unpublished board decision that did come to contrary inclusions is it your position that there is no way to read that language to even remotely suggest that interpretation is correct if it's done within the context of the overall statutory scheme then i think i'd you are now agreeing that we need to take a look at the entire s but what i what i would point out to your honor is that even even accepting that looking at this one specific statutory subsection leaves the court a little bit  that still doesn't mean that we need to proceed to the second step of analysis the court can still conduct a step one plain meaning analysis and do so in the context of looking at the  claim for asylum for example ok i think that in that context i would see those are those are the same thing i would say eligibility for asylum and the claim to asylum are are the same that when they're talking about something that materially effects an applicant's eligibility for asylum that's not that doesn't get at the question of the time bar in and of itself but looking at a way to overcome the time bar by saying look when i first entered this country i like for example in this case i was not a christian i there wasn't a way for me to bring an asylum claim at that point because that didn't exist at that time and so this language that deals with a circumstance that materially affects the applicant's eligibility for asylum goes toward the merits of the eligibility for asylum it's more than just  yes because there are people so i think this case actually illustrates not a bit there are people the it's true that in this case while there is still need to be a a determination as to discretion it's a higher burden for withholding of removal so a person who meets the requirements for withholding of removal would meet the lesser burden for asylum however congress has made the determination that an asylum application and removal even though that is not as easy as expansive as a as it's not a type of relief that will lead to a lawful permanent resident status the government is withheld from removing the petition raise my client is a very lovely young woman she set forth a claim that son usual and maybe that's why there's no precedent before this court it's so unusual that a woman from china who's been forced to have an abortion and she's united states doesn't initially file an application for asylum but in this case she did she did under the premise of being a christian and the court found her credible under as a christian the court found a credible that she was forced to undergo an abortion but the court made a mistake in bifurcating the case and not reading the plain language of eight d to where it says once she is eligible for asylum she's eligible and so i don't believe there's going to be a floodgate i don't believe there's going to be people enormous amount of people gaming the system and trying to get around the one year issue this is just one person and her claim was found credible the law supports your claim and we urge the court to agree i agree with you that this would this is a tough situation because the very the very apparent congressional and then renews earlier still claims if you found the rule if you found credible if it's filed within a reasonable period of time as whether it's timely or not we can't write into the rule a credible credible application an the rule i mean we have to write the rule would be is that if if there's a change of circumstance that material through that with regard to the application one aspect of the  one ground for the up location but there are other grounds that are untimely those are those can be renewed that would be your right as you are and what what would prevent just as it is really sort of policy issues but what would prevent someone who is a citizen of the people's republic of china from waiting for some evidence of persecution of christians and then