pro bono legal counsel for my client petitioner muhammad mr muhammad left this country at the age of seventeen was in the u s for the majority of his life in two thousand and eleven due to a series of unfortunate events an order  in absentia in december two thousand and seventeen mr muhammad was part of the botched somali ninety two deportation attempt in two thousand and eighteen petitioner filed a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions after the immigration judges an initial finding denying the motion europe to reopen was reminded by the specifically due to quote inadequate fact finding and quote the immigration judge once again denied the motion to reopen and the  both of these these lower court decisions are in clear air by requiring new or novel country conditions rather than the section one thousand two hundred and twenty nine a c seventy two statutory requirement of simply changed country conditions council new year period that type of violence is the same as what was occurring on about all relevant donz that type of violence would you agree to that it depends your gaaner on which group you're referring to isis somalia at the time of the two thousand and eleven hearing was virtually nonexistent rock it wasn't was an elevated to an isis affiliates and us until december of two thousand and seventeen and wasn't recognized by the united states as a specially designated terrorist group until february th two thousand and eighteen just months before the motion to reopen was filed in terms of the organization has a history a long history of targeting difference and intensity convinced me that there's a great big difference in intensity or not sure your honor and i think the issue here is really the relevant time period al shabaab was kind of at the height of its power in two thousand and nine was called golden days in the country and it was really rapidly advancing throughout the country and even penetrated into the capital city of mogadishu at the time of mr muhammad initial two thousand and eleven here and however it had really been driven back and so it might have still had the desire to carry out these targeted attacks but it wasn't able to at that point it had largely been driven back and its ability to carry out these targeted attacks was was significantly reduced it wasn't really again case here that requires adequate consideration of all factors in that case it was specifically regarding a lebanese christian and whether that individual would be specifically targeted by hizbullah again hizbullah was was present in the country at both periods of time but it has significantly more capability within the country of but not at the time of the motion to reopen and in fact that was the th motion to reopen in that case in the th circuit found in that case that it did make an ultimate determination and so the lower court still could find that there was inadequate but it's short shrift of the facts and its failure to specifically address one of the changed country conditions raised by  and so it was kind of gaining in its ability to carry out these targeted attacks that's similar here again we set forth in our brief kind of chart showing the before and after status in particular and you can see that that was pushed out of much of the country and so it wasn't able to carry out these two attacks that had significantly changed by two thousand and eighteen at the time of the present ok now what about the human normally the human rights watch retires or side by  you but this case this two thousand and ten human rights watch report that the government relies on i don't know what makes it look like war like this or downer stuff rather than some kind of upward trend like you're describing so how do you blame and then it went down between twenty million one hundred and twelve thousand and fourteen wasn't really involved in many acts of persecution and then again it was able to right in two thousand and eleven the country of somalia held its st presidential seven and that was largely because they had been able to gain control over the territory formerly controlled by also bob and they were able to exert that governmental influence that had deteriorated by the time of two thousand and eight considered the appropriate factors these of isis somalia the both of the lower courts dismiss the fifteen pages of record evidence in mere footnotes one sentence but not for the three cents for the immigration judge i don't know how that can satisfy the adequate consideration of all factors standard set forth by the hot she believed and did neither of those decisions they did that there were no come change country conditions or rather that there was insufficient evidence and that's flatly contradict been contradicted by the fact that there were sixteen pages of evidence we set for the before and after evidence in our opening brief ages thirty one to thirty two and that really show that again that it's virtually nonexistent in two thousand and eleven i admit that we didn't put very much evidence in prior to two thousand and eleven and that simply because there wasn't much basically asking us to prove a negative it wasn't really effective in the country until after that date again it was recognized by i h two thousand and eighteen as a specially designated terrorist group what about our recent case alley versus bar that's bad for you your honor as you can appreciate these faces are highly fact specific and so there are evidence and it was also beta based in part on a change in personal conditions or personal circumstances that's not the case here the bar again relies highly on that you know the bar the petitioner had significant credibility not been stripped at the time of our client's hearing in two thousand and eleven which it then was able to regain and really build upon leading up to that really grizzly attack in two thousand and seventeen is that the same distinction you would make for seems relatively close to what what you presenting here you're right roger the distinguished honorable judge sheppard upheld the denial in that case i think a key distinction there is again that's two thousand and eight this is tw of this terrorist group which is part of isis is is sufficient is adequate consideration of all factors raised that's a significant piece that again wasn't addressed in this case sufficiently unlike her mom as argument the agency certainly didn't engage in an extensive discussion of isis but there's no there's no evidence or there's no reflection when you read the agency's decision that they didn't understand or didn't consider mr muhammad's arguments with with respect to i this if you look at page three hundred and ninety eight dollars of the record those are the board and the immigration judge's decision in the st full paragraphs on those pages record the board then cited mr mohammed repairs and ministry of brief at age forty one of the record which contains a table with a side by side comparison of what i assume he thought was the best evidence as to isis  kind of a before and after and from all of that the agency reasonably determined that he simply hadn't demonstrated a meaningful change in somali country conditions with respect to isis the fact that it didn't exist prior order and it does exist at the time of his motion to reopen isn't necessarily enough to show that meaningful change in conditions rather than simply a continuation of the chaotic and violent conditions  somalia really for decades at this point with respect to al shabaab as as the court how in shire the al shabaab has been present in somalia since two thousand and eight and has used the same tactics through two thousand and eighteen so we're not talking about a different type of violence as as you're on a recognized we're talking about whether there has been an increase in the intensity of violence and i think that what we have here is a situation where mr muhammad would prefer a different interpretation of the record up that he hasn't shown an abuse of discretion in the agency's finding that the basic nature of the insurgency and its effect on the civilian population is essentially the same bow as also uses the word escalated in relation to al shabaab and i think that what what they were both really driving at is that it's certainly clear from the evidence that over time al shabaab has reorganized the hotel bombing or a larger car bombing so i think that that's really what the agency was getting out was a recognition that yes al shabaab has changed a bit in terms of what it's capable of in two thousand and seventeen or two thousand and eighteen versus what it was a couple of at the time of his hearing is an essential order and in two thousand and eleven but i think that when they looked at the evidence as a whole what what their conclusion was was that conditions for or kind of caught in this still in this crossfire between islamic insurgents on the one hand and government forces on the other but those conditions didn't materially change that there was no material increase in danger and it seems to me that that could maybe would have to but it could indicate and change perhaps or of the same type or of the same nature but there are so high that it would qualify  difficult case the way that the the way that the evidence came in there's a lot of it and it's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison of the before and after because we don't have for example a state department report from two thousand  versus a state department report from two thousand and seventeen so i do think that the agency considered all of that evidence and its conclusion that there was no change is reasonable based on that up but i agree with you that some of the phrasing or some of the articulation could have been a little bit more clear but i think overall what what the record shows is that the agency was engaged with this evidence and simply didn't find it sufficient to satisfy mr  this is the rare case where i think the two of you really phrased this case the same way the type of violence is the same it's a question of intensity i think you think you both agree on that  sipek but i do think that overall again what you have in hot g is you know you're looking at the evidence and you're playing it to the standard and i think that here that's exactly what the agency did and looking at these facts was it reasonable yes i think that it was there was nothing arbitrary or rational about what the agency did here fully considered the arguments and evidence and came to a conclusion i do think that shire is probably our best case es the agency's failure to specifically mention isis and finds no legal error there and here we have actually much more than i think what was true in in shire because the agency specifically does mention isis and specifically cites not only particular document or particular piece of evidence but also that side by side comparison that petitioner offered offer to the board so i do think that if you think that she i don't think that that's an impediment and also provide additional support although it is true that the circumstances there again were slightly different particularly in  legal question before the court and that frankly whether change country conditions requires new country conditions new persecutor or a new group or instead an intensification of a preexisting threat or a new instances twenty two dollars here as judge kelly specifically noted in their decision the immigration judge stated that petitioner had shown an increased ability to carry out more complex and targeted attacks in and previous years that should be enough philosophy but clearly had changed in the military and its capability to carry out targeted attacks against individuals like our client ok