the sole issue in this case is whether or not the immigration judge in the board of immigration pillows abused their discretion in denying the motion to reopen his removal proceedings in order to give him the opportunity to file for asylum the court excuse me the board of immigration pills and the immigration judge both ruled that the submit sufficient evidence to show that there was change circumstances in the country that he would be returned to which was pakistan and they did not show that he would suffer any type of harm if you would return pakistan and what's the change circumstance that you were tempting to present the prisoner submitted numerous documents and clued in a travel advisory from the state department a report from the state department regarding the humanitarian rights all indicating that terrorist attacks were on the increase dramatically and that b was to say specifically singling out americans and people from western countries it's the petitioner's contention that having lived in the united states for at that time approximately ten years that he had become westernized and would basically be looked upon as a traitor if you were to return to pakistan in the eyes of the taliban he also submitted evidence that his parents how resist a physically his father was in the government in pakistan have helped several government jobs and that he he has true brother in law in the military but the only thing that really substantially changed is the ten years that he was in the united states that how many of those legal theory he came in as a student i'm not sure exactly how how many years in running what excuse he was zero student yes he was for how long he when he came in in ninety five so hearing so i'm not sure how long he actually attended school but it seems to seems to me and i hadn't thought about this in quite this way before but it seems to me you're asking us to credit formula of whether the court should allow credit for these kind of changed circumstance i hadn't thought about it in those terms well but this seems to me that that's precisely what you're doing that's correct and that the reason the longer you stay the the better your chances of the longer you wily the law the better your chances are of getting credited for we're having been a culture right into american values we actually have several immigration laws for example cancellation removal that does reward exactly that if you here for ten years and you don't have a criminal record you give you your green card oh just a minute i will make sure we don't have a problem with the phone system judge newman what's the question we thought we might have lost a judge oh go ahead continue ok so like i said we do have several areas of the immigration law they do reward people that have been here says as long as they don't get in trouble as far as a criminal record and that's so that should you know the fact that he's been here that should come forward if he has become westernised my problem counsel is that the evidence that you presented it's hard to see how  either they show changed circumstances or couldn't have been discovered at the time or prior to the hearing in two thousand and ten i think that the facts the current situation actually may be better for your client than at the time that you moved to reopen i wondered if you were aware that there was an attack in the summer of two thousand and fourteen on a school where attending that school so part of your claim is that he's affiliated closely with the military and so therefore there may be some targeting on that so my question to you is are you aware of  newer developments since the time that you submitted this and did you discuss that with the government when we did try to show we submitted our briefs to the government is that we showed things human rights report came out that was subsequences hearing it was numerous terrorist attacks after his hearing and of course one of the best things in our pings just from his family he was planning to go back to call his parents so what we're asking the court to do is look at it in a few months is look at all the documents what happened in the past and how it's been going and increasingly getting worse they talk about incremental deterioration of the just hasn't shown that there was any abuse of discretion here petitioner had not reopening three months after he had voluntarily chosen to seek voluntary departure in lieu of pursuing an application for a during that time he claimed that there were changed country conditions however none of the evidence actually substantiate that as the board but the five the petitioner had alleged that he now for your  your persecution because of his westernized nations and because he has family ties with the pakistani military however the evidence that he submitted none of it actually dealt with any of those groups  didn't address pakistanis who were returning from the united states and had adopted american culture it did not address pakistanis who had family members in the military  conclusion voluntary departure to start the petition for reopening then comes only a few months later like in may the best of two thousand and ten so we're really talking about march april two months that intervened between the voluntary departure and the motion to reopen difficult to establish it would seem to be difficult to establish any factual circumstances that was what the immigration judge identified as being the problem is that he was relying on events that had been taking place during throughout his proceedings and that suddenly even though he had originally indicated he would pursue a basically the very issue that the judge when it also identified so i ask you this in the exercise of total candor on the part side of the government is there anything the in the forty that justifies a change of conditions solely on the basis of a discrete personal family fact that occurs in the reopening window  for relief and in this case the problem is not even just that the evidence is in a position to support reopening the show changed country conditions the real problem of the board identified is that just hearsay evidence doesn't actually substantiate that he has a reasonable likelihood of qualifying for asylum he would have to identify where in the evidence petitioner could show that there were instances where someone who has a family member in the pakistani military has been persecuted or he would also have to stablish that there was evidence to show that someone who had been living right states and had adopted westernized culture that they would also be persecuted that you mentioned that he'd have to show that someone who was affiliated with the pakistani military be persecuted and i raised this with council regarding the attack on the schools that killed over one hundred and thirty plus children where the taliban specifically said they targeted it because it was affiliated with the pakistani military  i know that with regard to be scase is in light of the issues in the case and how long sometimes it takes to get the argument but the government takes a look at the cases prior to argument for example on this very calendar today one case went away because the government took a look at it that with counsel informally and i wondered if the government had an opportunity to consider that in light of his claim of deletions of pakistani military in order to to do something with record doesn't include that information and the court's review is limited under twelve if you see before the to the administrators record is also petitioners burden to be sure no i understand and i recognise that i recognise that i'm talking about it's it's i'm clearly referring to something that was not submitted to him by him before the b s a and i understand that we're limited to the record before the b i and that we have to review  at the circuit even that the stage of argument so my question to you is considerations outside of the record whether the government had done that sort of assessment your own to the government there has been consideration but this case isn't appropriate  prosecutorial discretion and in terms of this matter then the question presented is really about whether or not the board acted within its discretion and so here a petition hasn't shown any basis for even considering such discretion when there isn't any new evidence and to the extent that that evidence suggests that affiliation with the pakistani military might provide a basis the question would also be will have petitioner shown a reasonable likelihood that he would be targeted on that basis and petitioner haven't done so here that was what the board said was the primary issue and when the so your position is that's except there's new information now since the time of his motion so we open then then he can go back and do another motion to reopen procedurally without me what happened he would then have to follow another motion to reopen based on changed circumstances your honor there's different approaches that he could do he could either pursue another motion to reopen based on change country conditions where he would actually establish that there was a reasonable likelihood that he would qualify for release or he could also and in that regard it would be best to approach the immigration customs enforcement office of chief counsel to determine whether they would join in a motion to reopen because there was sufficient evidence to support his claim he hasn't done that in this case and so when not bore the petitioner from filing yet another motion the real you know there are some regulatory limitations with respect to the motions very open and certainly if there are new developments then it doesn't preclude petition you haven't done anything at this stage and even any new evidence would have to be at a higher threshold than who has it that was merely asserting that especially when you still have family members living you are just like to bring up two matters here one was where you indicated within ninety days between the time of the hearing and the time the motions variables was a very short period such as during that short period of time there were numerous attacks that happened after terrorist attacks that happened after his initial hearing and so when you couple his parents warnings so and so warnings from the state department even if there was prior to his hearing plus now all these attacks that are taking place subsequent in just that ninety day period numerous attacks that did give him that fear and change conditions in his country the other thing that i just want to not that he would be harmed that he has a well founded fear that it's a subjective standard that he truly feels and his heart and an objective standard that a reasonable person in his shoes would fill he could be suffering