christianity while in the united states although we have no control over but what what's what's your best stop argument or authority that we can revisit  that well the best argument is that the judge conflated the rationale behind his decision in denying asylum and really under the convention against torture this honorable court pattern of persecution against a particular group in a certain kind of tree that that has to be taken into account and requires relief under the convention against torture income will toss the issue was whether  continued to reflect ongoing persecution of christians especially christians who have converted to base apostasy the charge of apostasy and possibly death in the documents which i submitted to the country conditions and i grieve with you that this is makes it very difficult for you prepare for your client but that we are to is supposed to look at the change country conditions well the  thousand and two with the i j a mate has been to two thousand and eighteen that's the period that we're supposed to be looking at to see if there's been any material changes in country conditions well as to material from the time of two thousand and two to the present time but we we have submitted documents showing that this is ongoing and increasing but we let me just change the subject just a little bit of from what my colleague my understanding is that b initial panel denied care relief because it simply didn't believe that your client had converted to christianity and since that's its conclusion i would change country conditions in iran ever allow him to reopen his case well the reason why the court found that they didn't believe him was because the immigration judge didn't believe that any immigration judge felt that it was very self serving that he had converted well the i j a did not believe basically that he had become a christian because he did not think he was he was convinced because of the the nature of the frivolous aspects of the case that he had submitted we believe that he had said we had meant that he ha submitted false documents he was the victim of people who were practicing immigration law and submit what are we not found though by the earlier determination under the law the case that he found he relief based upon the fact that the previous and i think looted that your position or was not a christian convert and therefore country conditions would make any difference in any of that or how do you deal with that how can an immigration judge  the fact that he submitted a lot of false documents that all plays into it but it that's what he does or she does whatever the case may be and that's what happened he didn't really conduct in the now it's just of their religion you know he was simply  was just making it up and that's what the i j a concluded he actually did mr had so many testified as to the nature of his belief the nature of his conversion and that he actually was a teacher in the in the school in the christian s teacher and continues to this day to go to that church well by the end of the day you and i seem to disagree on one and i j can do but in this case early the i j a determined that your client was not a christian convert the b i a confirmed that and here we are all these years later are we were i don't know why we're not bound by that determination and if that's true what difference would it make you been at their word that would permit us to remain and on that basis one of the i j a and to be i a concluded he was not a christian convert all these years ago you're asking that you're saying basically they got it wrong we want you to send it back i thought that your argument was that you changed country conditions would allow you to reopen and the reopening would then allow you to at least read litigate did the i j a get it wrong because he didn't look at the documents because he said things that were wrong then you would attack sat under the convention against torture i thought you had a for us this that you can't just say out of the sky now do you  against torture means you get to start over well your honor i believe that the the main point in this case is that the immigration judge did not give a full analysis under the convention against torture but mutely decided that this person wasn't had submitted anything false with respect to it is legit was the way i read it right he submitted a document regarding the baptism and a letter from his faster and he himself is it's each or and i think that i please the court madelyne henley pretty attorney general the board acted well within its broad discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reopen his cac lame faced and alleged deterioration and treatment of christian converts in iran isn't so her t eat st the board reasonably denied the opening because stationer failed to attach any application for relief to his motion as the regulations require that dan and the board reasonably concluded that even assuming petitioner is a christian convert he failed to show a material change in country conditions for christian converts in iran between two thousand and two when he was laughing for the immigration judge and two thousand and eighteen when he filed this motion to r documentation that mr adam on submitted back in two thousand and two the records seem to indicate that christian converts are  danger of being tortured or killed do you dispute that we don't dispute that the evidence that petitioner submitted with his original asylum application in one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven and then with the amendment three years later that that evidence shows that christian converts were considered to be afa states and that apostasy could be punishable by death the argument is that in order to prevail in seeking reopening of his claim but let me  me just so you agree with that so what evidence could he submit to you now to say that the situation is worse what's worse than death or torture based somehow folks who are our christian converts how can they ever prove that the situation is worse if then and torture well i mean i i'm just speculating as to what evidence might be out there but it seems possible that for example what was known if you compare the two thousand report for example the state department report international freedom that was submitted with the original application with the two thousand and sixteen state department report submitted with a motion to reopen there's an indication that conditions have improved so even though  there was true that apostasy could be punishable by death whether or not the iranian authorities are actually charging anyone or sentencing anyone or carrying out the sentences that can  over time and indeed it seems to have and it seems if anything have improved were  reports that was submitted which was the austrian red cross report which focused on how churches and that st of all that report my recollection is that report spoke about changes just in the last few years and so one point i want to make just about in general about any of the evidence where it's characterized as having been recent say twenty million one hundred and sixty two thousand and seventeen changes what's required for reopening is that there  a showing by petitioner that the conditions have worsened and to do that there has to have been evidence that you can compare from the past or from the whole time span between tw is does he have to make enough to convince us one hundred percent or does he have to make enough to raise the show and he would have to show that the boards conclusion that there hasn't been a worsening was unreasonable or arbitrary or that not supported by substantial evidence in the record and i would just point out that in the one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight publication of the iranian christians international that petitioner submitted with his original application it speaks to  house churches and it says that after the murder of a bishop in one thousand nine hundred and four government officials began then to focus on ordinary christians who are muslim converts or who encouraged muslims to convert and or to christianity at this point the small home it's happening now i don't think you know also his claim is torture claim isn't about how sturges write it but he's going to be well here goes if he is a christian and have we have the same documents that we can read and see if we disagree the evidence that petitioner pointed to in the most interesting open and in the opening brief what evidence of continuing condition and issue you asked about ability to attend a house church his claim isn't persecution or inability to attend religious services this is a torture claim so he have to been no there's no reason why the panel decision wouldn't be binding here but moreover you have the statutory prohibition this th motion th petition for review is timely and there's jurisdiction over only the board denial of the average credibility determination on an asylum claim here was for political reasons shouldn't act the credibility or spill over to the credibility terminations on the  indicates that i looked at all of the documents and fact the one document that i did look at was wrong and so that seems to have affected the panel decision here because it seems like there is unfortunate position now having to arn changed country conditions based on reports cutter reports that previously would have likely given him at least serious consideration that really  but you agree that the prior country reports would have given him serious consideration for can't really or do you dispute that i dispute it because he why do you not have been considered i mean that's it that's only if  you had gotten to the point where the i j a had looked at the documentary airs and had come out in a different way with his documentation country conditions which said that cat claim if the i j a had been convinced he was a christian convert and i just want to point out that i believe the previous panel grappled with what you are grappling with because it specifically distinguished come out  a continuation of come out this and a requirement that the country conditions be considered in to see whether or not independent of an adverse credibility decision the country conditions evidence can independently relief here that couldn't have happened because based on the immigration judges analysis of etymologies testimony about his conversion in addition to the general finding that all of the testimony was with which the board and the car previously found was false christian conversion and the board assumed it is true for the purposes purpose and in analyzing a motion it could have conceivably gone a different route and just said no evidence would be you can show would be material because we still don't believe that you've established your credibility with his motion to reopen he submitted no new evidence with regard to his conversion and made no effort to rehabilitate his credibility of the right just took his affidavit as proof that right where he says he's christian come are correct and i didn't question any of the other representations in there which are also contradicted by his testimony so the question is do correct that is correct but that brings me back to my st question i think what's worse and what can he show that's   these regulations apply to the reopening of a cat claim and that he has to follow the requirement that a change country conditions and compare treatment between the time of the original hearing on the motion to open intervening law the board then said even assuming that you were seeking reconsideration where denying it and it's untimely way way on timely and would deny through a sponsor reopening and then in the opening brief because he's a terribly afraid of being killed in iran that's basically the reason he what he did if he had been sent back in two thousand and seven would he not have been afraid of the same thing of course but his fear has increased and he is now  relief of convention against torture as you know there are some some restrictions on convention against torture none of them apply to this individual the case has not been tried the convention against torture a mistake somebody has never ever been