that country only as long as was necessary to arrange on ward travel, and that he or she did not establish significant ties in that country; or (b) That the conditions of his or her residence in that country were so substantially and consciously restricted by the authority of the country of refuge that he or she was not in fact resettled. In making his or her determination, the asylum officer or immigration judge shall consider the conditions under which other residents of the country live; the type of housing, whether permanent or temporary, made available to the refugee; the types and extent of employment available to the refugee; and the extent to which the refugee received permission to hold property and to enjoy other rights and privileges, such as travel 989 WL 331872 (BIA 1989) (<HOLDING>), superseded by regulation as stated in
holding that admission contained in an answer was binding despite the fact that it was made on information and belief holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that regulations requiring denial of admission to a firmly resettled refugee were only binding on ins directors not immigration judges or the board itself such that resettlement in a third country was a factor to be considered in evaluating an asylum claim as a matter of discretion holding that the judges restriction of the class was not an abuse of discretion holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion