resettlement we contend that the other country which is hong kong has now become the country from which he claimed china let me ask you a question about what's happened with hong kong under this one country two systems approach the common strain that has taken is it is no longer a british colony sovereignty is now in communist china however they still have although the communist may be at diluting it a separate system i don't see why sovereignty should necessarily guantanamo bay i'm not familiar with the kuantan a move to tuition it's land where the sovereignty is in cuba but the control is in the united states so even though it's part of cuban sovereign territory it isn't controlled by cuba and i'm asking your foreign congress and similar well that would be the difference the control in hong kong is actually resides with the beijing the other decisions made by the hong kong government which is in fact is there any reason anything in the record to suggest that people who are struggled against in the call for revolution in through the problem in this case if we write an opinion thing he was or was not resettled it may have unintended consequences for a lot of people the future if you help us we find what what should be the standards what should be the guidelines for taking care of thirty five instead of waiting thirty nine they got out and there's now there's just what a week what are we going to say about people who decided to come to the united states before nine hundred ninety seven but after nine hundred eighty four revolution and china is not the same country and china is becoming a kind of a crypto capitalist country now they've got all kinds of they're very one of the leading trading nations persecuted not solely on the basis that they left the country now what is the evidence in this record that this petitioner will suffer persecution upon return to the mainland china's taking back this area where there's the new territories or calhoun whatever what what do we know about what was already consultation back and forth as to what type of government would be installed in hong kong how much autonomy the territory would be given but none of this was actually  waited until ninety seven and the preparations were very gradual and in eighty four i don't think that there was even any prying to put together something in my mind i'm having difficulty with it maybe you can help me thinking there really isn't any question that this that this guy was firmly resettled and hong kong and if is not that uncommon as dr goodwin brought up the regime change in germany when the nazis took over their regime changes all the time in the middle east as regime change just happened so what is is that the doctrine of firm resettlement should not be applied to a country where there has subsequently been subsequent to the settlement a regime change and what i'm thinking is all that really doesn't make any sense unless the regime change is material to the goals of asylum policy giving people a refuge from don't see where it's material to someone whose father was struggled against in the cultural revolution i wouldn't agree with that and i would like to emphasise once again that the transcript the level is really not adequate we have to deal with that burden and we have to use the record we've got specifically to tell us now he did firmly resettle in hong kong prior to his arrival petitioner agrees with that and therefore the board of immigration appeals properly found him to be ineligible for asylum the matters that were brought up opposing counsel as to the intent of firm resettlements i think are very clear in plainly articulated in the statute and in the regulations those two branches of government decided specifically to present statute regulation that most important the period of time prior to this the applicant's admission or arrival in the united states counsel can you help me on this the problem that i posed what if someone is firmly resettled but then the country that we resettled then has a regime change  what happens to a sperm retirement whether you pick or we where the regime change is that the country is taken over by the country that he fled from and that's situation there is recourse for those people there was recourse for mr wong and he actually pursued that recourse before the immigration judge and that is asylum is it is a discretionary matter it's of a matter of the mystic law that is under the discretion of the attorney general what is not discretionary is withholding of deportation in this case the withholding of remove to a country where somebody's life or freedom would be at risk of persecution if you were more likely than not to be persecuted on account of a protected ground and that is the recourse for that is nationally the concerns of a court and that's that you want a situation that scenario in that situation if an individual will use hong kong as an example if this person is firmly resettled he comes to this country china takes over and if there is evidence that petitioner presents that shows individual risk of persecution to him or her persecution of hong kong and hong kong but he would be able to present that claim to the immigration judge and the immigration judge would find whether or not that individual qualifies for such relief and therefore it is wrong he would be withholding of his removal to hong kong until the conditions may change in the future and again that recourse was available to the petitioner in this case and and that should i think a later the court's concerns as to whether or not we're sending people back into these really killer scenarios any particular scenario which we sort of have here yes that the country is now under the administration of hong kong is under the administration of china and it wasn't before and i think it's also it's the government's position when in that kind of situation this is unique but on one hand it was known perhaps as early as the early eighty's not just the middle eighty's that reversion was going to occur and probably via one nine hundred ninety seven on the other hand what difference would that four the agreement i think is between hong kong or rather china and in england set up the scenario but congress i think the government's position would be that these people do have recourse in that situation congress still specifically promulgated this statute that firmly settlement will bars asylum prior to it or from a sort of prior to the entry in this country and whether or not there is some sort of other former pro or remedy to protect these individuals from returning to that particular scenario i think that  exists in the regulations in the statute that we have what would be available to this petitioner here well it would be what would be available was what he sought in the beginning before the immigration judge and i just withholding of the four station and the for whatever reason petition did not choose to fuel the decision of the immigration judge finding that that person didn't have a well founded fear of future persecution in hong kong or china i should say and that was not appeal to the board of immigration if you know exactly three malaysian made on the merits of the risk of persecution yes your honor it was made on the evidence before the court otherwise testimony taking about obviously his prior treatment and i think it's also important to note that the record indicates that this person after his move testify to kind of getting caught up in a you know of some sort of corruption scandal at work that he wanted no part of it was a providence and that worked in conjunction with the government and that's all we have he was not persecuted on the other ground the judge didn't find immigrations or didn't find that he did so and prospectively the immigration judge also ruled that there was no likelihood or more likely than not the scenario of him suffering persecution and it's also important to point out i think that at the end grounds race religion nationality and he said now i don't want to leave my wife and i've started a new life your century in the united states so that it's very clear cut again i think the statute very clear any concerns about returning is hong kong a separate country from china we're going to i i don't know what the government's official position would be on that all i can say is that it's far as my research research has indicated any resettlement in hong kong hong kong has been thinking sovereignty doesn't fully answer the question as as i was discussing with you or your colleague in the guantanamo bay situation but it really does matter if there's a change the hypothetical case some thinking of is supposed to come but he opposed saddam hussein as they were in iraq in this event and what they did they wouldn't get but through a meat grinder is they went to kuwait got asylum and they firmly resettled in kuwait i don't know if this would be possible is hypothetical case and then saddam hussein conquered kuwait and that was starting  put dissidents he found there there was meat grinders would it be the government's position that the firm resettlement in kuwait prior to the iraqi conquest of kuwait eliminated the possibility of granting asylum in the united states under the firm we start with offering what i think specifically and that scenario if there's really t and done country conditions change in kuwait and now this person is at risk of being deported there he can file a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in kuwait if you send me back to kuwait i will be persecuted  therefore after the board grants is a motion to reopen and submitted proper evidence can file that motion up and if it's granted we have a new asylum case before the board of the before the board of the immigration judge so there is recourse in a situation where someone is in proceedings as recourse after the conclusion of proceedings and there's a final order they can still move to reopen their case to the worst protection for those people and in either of those scenarios and if there are no further questions that i get i would just rule as a separate issue obviously is the option to petition but looking at it from the standpoint of whether that rule was properly applied in this case defined as firm or settlement and he failed to revive it in this case so there it is on a per se here's an identity card you are firmly resettled finding there is a chance to rebut that that proposition before the immigration judge and the other thing is that you can show the other way to rebut is to show that he wasn't resettled as a temporary stop as he was claimed persecution but i guess the other matter which i just mentioned that showing that his freedoms were so restricted that he in fact was not those factors were brought up to the immigration judge and the board because the transferring over it actually taking place after the initiation of these proceedings in china hong kong was under the purview of china already at that point so those factors were brought before the immigration judge and at that level the manner in which he addressed the firm settlement issue i think was based strictly on the reading of the regulation and applied it as as it was before him and then there moreover as to the protection i may have be accorded to him because of this particular scenario hugely to cater that on the withholding i think it in terms of the merits story and getting into the details of whether or not of course if there the statute that was promulgated by congress and congress came back as hard as it is that when there's no development in the statute what so ever with respect to the unique situation we can use the fact that the established fact that he has no it's not more likely than not that he will be persecuted if you return to china is that is that correct well i think that one the border reviews  i don't think you understood my question i'm not i'm sorry i didn't want you if you don't understand tell me you don't understand i thought i did but i guess i didn't you're familiar with collateral estoppel in ordinary civil cases in court sometimes you can take a fact that's established and another case between the same parties that was not appealed and used that practice established to help resolve the appeal of a separate case finding of the immigration judge to support the issue before the court now i don't think is really a matter before the court because the firmer settlement i get the issue again i'm not involved i'm a little wary but someone who's fallen gong might have something to fear on account of the communists taking over and if that's so i'm a little wary i'm just going with the restricted and therefore that part is not that i work their freedoms weren't restricted right well then you could go to any church you wanted in hong kong long as it was a british colony so i guess that would be a anything you wish to where you have five minutes left you don't have to use all the time but this is there anything that you want one i just mentioned by way everybody or anything else you think we need to know on the issue of withholding i'd like to point as i have not been able to come up with anything to indicate what congress meant to do in this particular situation then we go back to