error as well as out of former counsel the reason for the nile was simply that the motion was untimely and that it was he second but that fails however because t one which totals the time in america mutations and the second one change circumstances which makes those limitations completely in a political as a matter of law my client met those two of the police or the government generally and it doesn't have to be support but involvement in or condone of returning a black blind eye to or inability to control p c c generally because your client introduced evidence of police brutality certainly which was mostly of a nature of police shooting first and asking questions later in an attempt to enforce the law but the evidence that your client introduced didn't relate to the police's inability to control p c c in particular i mean there was evidence of the rise of p c c and its expansion into pain funding from china but that connection if you could talk about that a little bit at a pre stated designers are only just  are other pieces of evidence and i want to make sure those are get your for the court because that would go to your understand cern's so in addition to talking about the death squads essentially police officers killing individuals similarly explosives along with the police of their being allowed but that was at an outside contractor right that set up a training and it wasn't that the police welcomed the p c c into their ranks it was that the p c c have duped the contractor who didn't perform background checks and so they were able to will change so do you mean infiltrate the police force so that they're acting with the police when the police go out into the streets in that specific in that specific instance infiltrate the training of there is no other evidence in the case it does talk about infiltrating the police force to act on behalf of the p c c and so let me talk about those two points first there are those already part of the record established and held by the grecian judge what had happened to direct evidence is that the p c c through corruption and the government is the police officers who are corrupt officials a willingness to do their job perform their duty or acquiescing or turning a blind eye to you through what's happening to the responded something very serious happened and i think it's important to ignore it recently and was admitted into evidence so what happened to the mother is that she was threatened by the p c c and what she recounts there are several letters that there are not it's easy to read especially with when translated but what happened is she went to the police and the police actually refused lives so she had to subtly she was sent into another jurisdiction to to another neighborhood so she made several efforts and so the police shows how they are indeed turning a blind eye their willingness to even le to report and the right time and place i'm confused i thought they said i thought they said they were going to investigate it that that was after her efforts to to to file the report again but the first time they were willing to take it and she explains that in her letter so a report was ultimately taken after he was denied the ability to first file a file in the first place and so that goes to doubt with that there were clear that in your opinion but even with the new evidence now there strengthen even more so going back to the exceptions because i think that's really clear and mr ramos braga if he meets one of the two exceptions his petition for you has to be granted because the grounds for denial for the motion where that he was what do we mean by due diligence well could the petitioner reasonably be expected to file suit so that requires talking about what my client  the law amended file new evidence in a fairly short period of time and so i'll reserve the rest of my time for about a thank reviewing here the court is only reviewing the board's denial of petitioners second on timely motion to reopen fishing or sought to excuse the time the number of bars by demonstrating a change in country conditions or that he was entitled to equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel therefore the scope of this courtroom view is limited to only those determinations anything else raised by petitioner to this court is outside of the scope of this courtroom diligence and prejudice to demonstrate prejudice it was petitioners urged him to show that had his counsel acted differently the case outcome of the case would have been different and he is unable to show that in this case grandfather and the mother the threat to the mother and the report to the police station that when answered can you talk about that why that's not a change condition showing that the p c c might be likely to torture and the government unable to stop it or unwilling to sure your honor first to demonstrate a change in country conditions it was petitioners heavy burden to show that conditions had actually changed and petitioner himself just admitted that before the immigration judge was evidence that he was tortured that he that the p c c wanted to kill him that they beat him that they shot him and in the mother's affidavit all it really shows is that the p c c continues to target his family in brazil and wishes to target him in  country conditions the agency first stated particularly with respect to the affidavits that it be either did not present new new previously unavailable evidence or it was unclear that they presented new previously unavailable  t it was petitioners burden to show that the evidence was not previously available and second the agency noted that this evidence merely demonstrated a continuation of previous conditions which is insufficient to demonstrate that petitioner was entitled to reopening based on change country conditions and in your honor your honors i would like to take a moment to under that standard this court can only read reverse the agency's decision if it was arbitrary irrational or contrary to law and in this case the record does not demonstrate that the agency's decision was arbitrary or rational or contrary to law were for purposes of changing country conditions petitioner did not demonstrate that his evidence was not previously available or that it demonstrated actual change in conditions and did not demonstrate that he exercised due diligence where he knew about the flaws that he points out in his it by his previous counsel he knew about that before the board's decision on the merits even came out and yet did nothing until his second untimely motion to reopen and where he was not prejudiced where as i said before he has removed ability based on section twelve twenty seven eighty two really has no bearing on the outcome of this case and the agency's underlying decision as pointed out by the court and by his prior counsel's response to his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel did not center on government acquiescence for purposes of caffe it was whether or not he met his one in this case it even discussed government acquiescence and it is only now in its second untimely motion to reopen that he's arguing government acquiescence and in order to reopen his case but his era not raising it where it was not at issue and where the agency could have relied and did rely on an alternative basis in denying his original merits determination your honour's if there are no further question your it's wholly inaccurate that the standard to be applied here is that of abuse of discretion first the government's brief doesn't even squarely address it they use the word discretion here and there but they don't actually address it  abuse of discretion does not apply to change circumstances why because the regulation itself that we cited to says specifically this limitation shall not apply to change circumstances to much is based on change your  about whether the motion isn't timely or not we're talking about whether there are changed circumstances and for that all we have to prove is that evidence is material no one says at a price in my client's head the fact that he's a grandfather was held at gunpoint that he's my mother was threatened that he's liable started through that is not material court is material because it relates to asylum withholding to a risk to his life that's all he has to show and he then has to show that he was not available before this incident happened after his hearing which occurred in june twenty four teen and the deponents talk about the bill of it a bill ability of those testimonies before there after so he has met changed circumstances the evidence is material to a threat to his life and it was not previously available at the last hearing that's all he needs to show thank you thank you thanks to both counsel in the cases taken under advisement