has not provided an analysis where the court can look and determine whether or not a meaningful review has been provided for example the reports do indicate percentages in increased rates and so on and so for along with the wars of china in the news articles on those reports it just will fail to be commented on but before we get to that i would like to address the state department reports which the b n mentions w i would assert that working and document is not enough when you cherry pick when you fail to allies evidence which supports an alien's client and there is evidence that does support the areas claim and it would be a wants to deny the is the law permit the b i e to do it in a summary fashion as they did here where they say the evidence presented may suggest an incrementally stricter enforcement of restrictions against religious practice in churches the b a a obviously but there also has been it increase yes the problem has continued but the evidence shows is this just because they keep using the word continue doesn't need allies other evidence to show the height increases i don't have any statistical evidence but there seems to be an increase in the number of motions to reopen being based upon religious conversion and claim of change to country conditions so you can avoid the american time and bars on chanst reopen can you can you cite for me any case any reported decision that has found there to have been a change in country  once you establish a you've been baptising you've converted you must show evidence of material worser contributions but for the country reports that show of force in a country conditions who in other cases would not be granted but if needs to go back in and be more transparent in its thinking basically the army are making to us the other category is an eye of the petition concluding that based upon virtually identical evidence that you presented in this record that there are no there has not a showing of change country conditions so i can back to judge the nasties question is the only case that you can identify where a reviewing panel has said yes there are changed tree conditions as your representation report that protections for religious freedoms have deteriorated in china but then the court was on to say but we have already concluded that this isolated statement in religious freedom report does not specify the timeframe in which the conditions deteriorated how much conditions deteriorated one which regions the conditions deteriorated and found no abuse of discretion in denying motion real motion to reopen provided  then analyze everything including the evidence which is favorable to elliot's and then say right it does or does not the b s a is only required to consider evidence that tiriel yes and among the things you included was a category of requirement beyond identifying a particular documents and sleeting that they considered that the board actually undertake a substantive analysis in this question of the content of those documents c probative repeated across different cases thinking for that question every opportunity to respond instead of just drawing a conclusion i appreciate that greatly i represent a significant amount of clients who are from a similar area of china there should be a close knit community their community seems to have grown the religious practices in their community seem to have grown and so when somebody comes into my office and says that they needs ever the same none of the reasons for them going to church ever the same but the the the basic facts are the same i'm a chinese national i didn't go to be moved i'm afraid to go back here's what the upset about it suggested perhaps turning to religion may be helpful in the first three case i'm twenty fifteen that's it that's the scene myself around a times where their grandparents will be dying or will have died the person is just me and they have nobody here they don't have a parent here that nobody here to guide them so they end up in church and then in church asked bunch of people from new jersey how they felt about their family they would all say the same thing doesn't mean leave colluded it just you have a chinese population who are very similar and community is aware of all this and he turned to the option of religion now and so more and more people are gravitating towards trance or you're just presenting the facts as presented to you in your staff i forget is that i've been told that i need personal characteristics that then renders relevant i change country conditions right why isn't that in the situation we have you're simply a change in personal circumstances rather than circumstances and with an eye on that basis people continue my office to share with you and say i'm a member now of the chinese democratic party i'm a member now did not practice falun gong and my response to them is ok i'm stan and you have a fear of returning but the repression against the chinese democratic party has been a long standing and there is been a very little income increase the outlaw fou notions to reopen which goes to the question of jurisdiction whether this was timely by old and whether we can even consider it do we have to address it because  the issue in this case as i think you should has been well discussed is whether or not the board abused its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen proceedings there's no dispute that the motion was on time or a number of guards the question is whether the board of jesus discretion based upon a change in personal circumstances should not be allowed and i'm not sure that it's entirely clear the board is decision didn't make a finding saying that  they present evidence of change contradictions you really have to give due consideration and show us the consider that evidence so bored in this case i think reflects a response to that to that case or were it didn't even get into personal circumstances because  many you know a change in religion is pretty self evident to be a change in personal circumstances there's no more have to say that the sky is blue i don't know that ultimately i think that's i mean you could go both ways but i tend to think that under generally given the board didn't make a determination that regard maybe i don't know it's not it's not that like i said before it's not entirely clear i guess that's certainly within the judgment of your hours i'm not sure what to do a circumstance like that about the flipside  in rising in the country of nationality that are material the claim the regulation doesn't say anything to the extent of personal circumstances which is why i think the courts are all in agreement that personal circumspection personal circumstances on their own is not sufficient to w treat it as a mixed petition in this case they just only addressed the issue of change country conditions and then prima facia eligibility they didn't make a finding saying that this is at its core a a issue of personal circumstances so again there's th at that sort of problem that started out discussing if you're interested and you do think that there is  the court's letter here the sand case and the judge posner's case in the seventh circuit and it actually discusses those two cases at length in fact had a ratio some of the findings that it makes in a case are particularly pertinent here it says  you know the claim that appears to be founded at its core on change personal circumstances it addresses the discussion that you discussed with respect to the mixed where you have a part change in personal circumstances and part change in country conditions and it really comes down  yes i think the reason that case has also been struck by when you look at the supreme court's sort of seminal cases about motions tree open with respect to immigration proceedings president i'm thinking i know it's against i would do the supreme court i think has pretty definitively come down on the side of finality of litigation in these motions to reopen cases given the border wide latitude of discretion because they're concerned about the potential for abuse about the language they use i think aliens creative infertile enough to produce new and continuous claims for  implicated in different and i think types of changes in personal circumstances well well for example if you take the the cases that arose out of the family planning policy i for abuse of the system seemed to be greater so the supreme court's rationale coming down on the side of litigation seem to be stronger in a case like that now the converse really there's also a sort of maybe hidden philosophical question about whether a conversion to religion is a choice a petition i think there are arguments maybe from religious people that might say that it's not actually a choice you know it's more of a philosophical thing maybe they thought the calling of but that's a bit of a confusing issue i don't know that the court i think they could make an argument in both ways and i'll find out what the government wants to do and which position they want me to take i think it would be helpful to find out what the government believes position should be ok maybe of the opinion that we can't address  did you know there are three main things that sort of jump out one of which is sort of a british and two of which sort of favor the argument for the government the first is that they're different seem to be some problems for unregistered christians in china that obviously favors to share the next thing you sort of notice in the documentation that it's been that way for quite some time the reports indicate that the state department has labeled china as an area of particular concern since one thousand nine hundred so if the evidence does seem to indicate that this is been going on the state department reports talk about the ninety nine issue and when the state department decided to label china as an area of particular concern so the board is always in every case going to be subject to this accusation of cherry picking because they're going to look at the documents and make a conclusion and then point to the part of the document that supports their conclusion but you know to do with the way my colleague has suggested they would have to go through the entire document and only will label each  knowledge is openly that there has been some evidence suggesting an incremental increase of problems for underaged christians in china but it also goes on to say that the evidence in that regard shows that the likelihood of persecution is low and the evidence a documents yes and when the board does that it's always going to be subject to an accusation of cherry picking because obviously whoever the opponent is is going to say that no the evidence doesn't say that they should have waited evidence in a different way but in terms of  is there any indication that the even consider the chinese i believe that some of the sites that they have here are sites directly to the china and china a report i think there's one on page one  two thousand and fifteen i think this was and that's how he would show that the change was material that announces becomes somewhat problematic when there's a post from move a conversion because he can't go back to nine hundred ninety nine found a material change in country conditions nine hundred ninety nine to today with respect to treatment of christians not that i could find and i would disagree with my colleagues assessment of judge posner's decision in fact if you look at the very end of judge pos 's decision in the loop is what he says is sort of an afterthought before his decision is occasionally the level of courts repeat almost verbatim characterizations of governmental attitudes towards the house churches from earlier reports suggesting no increase in  persecution so he as a throwaway he said now here he dismisses that because he says the book didn't address that and he says that's not sufficient so we sent it back out of the board but even he is sort of conceding at the end of his decision that there may be a change in country conditions so i would disagree with the increase in participation in christianity in china and as a result of that in two thousand and five the in public to new regulations and it two thousand and seven they started cracking down for people violating these regulations and in two thousand and eight they said only more religious practices will be permitted and in the two thousand and nine two thousand and ten and eleven there's evidence of i said midget mental facilities