good morning me please the court my name stuart clint ski i represent patricia corp over who is present in court today i would like reserve two minutes for any possible rebutt in preparing for a large me today i could of course review the record again and the board of immigration appeals that there was a substantive change in the nature of the cloning no longer performing his work for the catolic was in armenia by the way passed away august of ninety four and in his testimony page three thirteen of the record he place in armenia itself today we can look at the newspaper and all we have to say is cartoons in denmark and there's persecution in jakarta over th after speaking for myself in this case is the questioner changed country conditions and what i'm struggling with is that have to have your client been believed in one nine four the original hearing which according to the remained she should have been is that what we should consider or should we consider that two thousand hearing  materials as well concerning change country conditions in other words what part does that don't lay that's been built into this case how does that affect it when you're under the well even if that but even if there is past persecution if there are changed country conditions there's a presumption but not a certainty a future persecution or well founded fear of future persecution that's why i'm asking the question because was if it is past persecution and there is the presumption so the burden will then be on the government i'm not aware of any case law on who has the burden of proof when we're talking about well founded fear the case when we come back to substantial evidence i e will say that there is evidence that the change country conditions have been for the better they're either the same or they worse the state department in our before said armenia had one of the best human rights records of any former soviet republic and by the two thousand hearing the state bar missing the human rights record in to her individual well i know there is a body of case law that says that you cannot take the general law used and use that to make a night of negative credibility funny but we don't substantial evidence doesn't support that what the object is that when they were both in armenia there were all these acts of violence and they really happened and it was on account of the only thing we're talking about here substantial up substantial evidence for law upon that background material would not support their finding a substantial changes  while her father has been living in moscow since one nine hundred ninety three i didn't know that he had passed away until this morning i had not been involved in an armenian politics he had not been involved with a church she had previously worked for but most importantly declined to believe the applicant she should have been believed to be i alternately said that she was credible on the immigration judge was wrong to say otherwise so if the immigration judge had acted properly back in one thousand nine hundred four at the time of the original hearing and had he properly believed the applicant there would not have been changed country conditions and she would have been presumably entitled to asylum at that time what bothers me is that because of this passage of time now the argument is made well the country conditions are changed and so she's now not in title and i'm just troubled by that i don't know what to call it i'm troubled by that sequence of events and i'm not sure there was a specific question in there is in power i don't see how it's changed so much that she doesn't have an object that would not still have that objective component which is the change country conditions argument goes to it doesn't go to any issue of individualized persecution but just looking at does she have an objective fear or head can't you conditions change so much their fear is no environment how does that work that that works and i'm sorry your honor i don't but i do know if somebody has less than one percent of the government they're not able to do political killings are politically that they only have two the politics in situation in the church in armenia we don't record that is correct your honor the record cuts off that ninety four about that where he was writing from that there was nothing in the record showing a change since then i was answering judge moore last question on the substantial evidence yes the evidence must be compelling but i feel very strange in acting like a