reason that because ms min was driven from ethiopia during the ethiopian eritrean war that she was a war refugee and as was set forth in the briefs and i think it's very clear that that conclusions very extremely inconsistent with this court's previous decision in the dom case where it where this court in the dom said that the mere fact that there's a war going on doesn't create persecution which is the basic law however this court specifically said where the civil strife has its root in and based on a protected category then there can be persecution and that's exactly what we have in this case where  constituted persecution and that we think that the case law stablish is that it does but neither the judge nor the b i specifically addressed that point and therefore i believe under venture it might be appropriate that that should be remanded to the saule the for that issue to address whether or not the the stripping her citizenship and its felon her from ethiopia constituted persecution  ethiopian case from the seventh circuit both suggest that it is persecution and in those cases they do remain into the v i i a for to address that issue and then there's no subsequent point of decision  just a follow up on judge not as question that helps me a lot so yes you are lying and i'm only for the proposition that the fact that his work time doesn't make the claim disappear and it can't be there in wartime but the question of whether or not exile if that's the right word probably to me i think what has to be done here is to recognize that under the dome the civil war the existence of the war did not preclude the claim of persecution and therefore it must be remitted back to address the issue of whether the decisions they've come out of this court i think my horizon i think in two thousand and six which was a bank decision so that you know the burden is on lease is on the government to establish an offer of resettlement and that it's only when the government meets its burden that it shifts and in this case there was nothing that established the government didn't establish any anything that remotely approaches an offer from the sudanese government to these maharaj emphasizes the regulation in emphasize that you have to follow the firm resettlement regulation which focuses on an offer of settlement and i think in my garage you said that the first thing i look at is the action of the government in that country now and in that other i'm a little confused by your argument because we did say i'm looking at one sixty two after twenty nine we talk about the regulation and that regarding resettlement and where there are three years of residence had been established we we said that that essentially raised i guess you call it a prime aphasia case of resettlement sufficient to shift the burden based on the inference from the duration of the stay to the petition or to disprove resettlement and my question for you is if that's  had no rights to anything she she was simply sitting in a refugee camp it's probably closer to the compass a coke mon tale case that is cited in our brief where you're in a refugee camp you don't have any rights there's no nothing establishes rights to go around the city or around the country to do anything she says unemployed in a refugee camp or hearing or you tell me what the record shows that i didn't find much in the way of testimony as to what the conditions were either in the refugee camp or what she did during the twenty month period that she lived there i agree the record is sparse and i think that also gets back into then i would have to say we'd have to look at a little bit more about the way maharaj approaches this because for example to just say well she's been there three years that creates a presumption i think really lets the government office off the burden because the government could produce a report from the state department or something fact that says the fact of the matter is in sudan they are allowing people to stay that's that's those are resources within the government's possession and the government really presented absolutely nothing and to say that well just the mere passage of time alone is sufficient i think that's not accurate and it's inconsistent with the regulations that would have been for her to simply testify to what the conditions were in the refugee camp that you know all we did was sit around and you know go to the soup line three times a day and we couldn't get any work because there were no jobs of the government of sudan wouldn't you know i think you could do it with twelve questions but i think you probably could but i wasn't the trial  i'm the trial attorney i'm not even sure that i see that there's a firmly settlement issue on this record two years there's the government had an opportunity for example after hearing you introduce a document from the state department with an opinion whether saying that we believe that you know the government of sudan is granting sanctuary and then they were been put on notice to rebut it but then you haven't even noticed of that issue and i think that's one of the reasons the record sparse again i didn't  with respect you know i don't think that's exactly what he held i think he noted that there's a difference that a person fleeing a country due to civil strife or war does not per se establish eligibility for asylum grade must show that they were citizenship when the officials came to her employers place of business they spoke only to the employer the employer stated to her that they should leave she voluntarily followed him picked up the aisle entirely is an interesting word in that uses the word coercion as to what happened to her and he discusses that but it's important to note that her family remained in ethiopia and there is no evidence that they suffered any harm so it does not follow that leave that would be different there was no threat of deportation there was no threat of harm the record reflects that the police officers spoke to her employer and her employer said that they should leave she was not that and what happened to her in this case the immigration judge only focused on whether the harm rose to the level of persecution there really wasn't a discussion as to whether was on account of protected ground i don't to remove the question is in this case whether she was ordered deported and that is simply not the case again her family stayed they didn't suffer any harm she was never formally threatened that purports to be from the ethiopian security administration and refugee players and there was testimony about the stamp in the lower left hand corner that apparently valid the immigration judge accepted it solely for the fact that it allowed her to leave and enter sudan he did suggest that it stated that she was it was not for reentry but as applied for readmission to see that there's nothing there's nothing in the record that establishes just felt to be from or trying to and i think that's important that nothing in the evidence compels reversal of the immigration  record that that she understands from this document which you see i did not find it to be authentic it's not that he found it to be an authentic he simply accepted for the fact that she could exit and then stay in a refugee camp to suit them i don't think that the specific time you know if it's eighteen months it is not and if it's you know twenty it is it's a general finding of fact by the immigration j e here just because she did not see even offer citizenship doesn't mean that she couldn't receive it she didn't apply for status she didn't apply for a bank account or anything else on the issue about the effect of her banishment a couple of points number one there is evidence in the record i believe it's a human rights watch reporting also a un report that all confirm that these banishment orders were issued and that essentially we had exactly the way hers did in they were not allowed to come back and so i think it's well established their testimony has to be interpreted in light of country conditions in the country conditions in ethiopia where they were banishing everybody