role was to give an independent analysis rather than stepping in the shoes of his attorney because he has not through any i decided to look at this case and decide what i thought of it and advised the c reopen based on changed circumstances and and evidence that couldn't have been presented at the original hearing now the event would be a two fold inquiry though when it first is there is the simply beyond the ninety day period for reopening if the answer is yes then do sufficient change circumstances exist to excuse the the untimely this have i got it right right right well it  seems to me i mean i reading that i've got here the section eight c f r one thousand three point two see three two and it says you can make it beyond ninety days upon a showing of change circumstances arising in the country of order of may thirty one two thousand and five correct suggest that they didn't consider the changed circumstances argument when they cite expressly to the regulations subsection th the board didn't specifically address his claim and reject it because they didn't find he met well and they don't mail specifically addressed claim and that's the second part of my my argument but have you read the statement in the second paragraph after they cite to subsection to see three little room and too little room and however we do not find that the respondent has established changed circumstances in blaming the westerners for natural disasters like earthquakes volcanoes and tsunamis well that you could fall into that general category but i think that this is leading into the second part of my problem with the sort of which is i think previously saying in he's a violent place there's a lot of sectarian strife going on i don't want to go back how with how was their order any different from a memorandum disposition issued by our court after we've read the  been submitted by the parties considered the arguments then we cite to the legal authority in this case the regulation and say we don't find that the appellant met that condition what more does the appell tribunals have to say to properly dispose of the issue i think in a case like this where you have a completely different condition that you're saying triggers your right to asylum that the least the board should do is to say ok we acknowledge you're making this argument we don't think this gets you to to the point that you need to get instead they're just saying something that's very similar to what was said subsection that is at issue and then says we don't find that he met this standard what what more does the board need to do i guess you'd want to have two more paragraphs saying the petitioner argues that's and so but we reject that because we don't think that constitutes change circumstances but it seems to me that's a hard argument to me i think that they need to  show in there and also that they took into account the the different circumstances that came up in this case instead of of saying you're making a motion to reopen your your own timely and we and a new specific event that has led to a specific targeting and his motion according to his motion so it is a very nice craig in your view of the law if the board had said based on the subsequent  pen we don't think this meets the standard i think if they had done that we'd have a different case you know you've got a little bit of time left why don't we hear from the government and then we'll give you a chance to