this nd motion to reopen found that the information that he presented in support which was the letter from his brother and news articles and other things wasn't new you know that the situation regrettably in algeria has been about the same for a long time and why why by what right do we disagree with that finding that assessment of the newness of this information well the threat was hurt after maybe with particular reference to him it's new but the board in its response just says we don't think that he has justified the rather extreme set of you know step of reopening that his fear he's always had a fear of persecution from this these particular groups in algeria who don't like police officers who would force   information as to where he has provisions of security operations so that makes him a much more visible person now than it was before but don't we have to have an additional component doesn't there also have to be evidence that he presented that the all cheery and government was not going to defend him or protect it seems to me that that's lacking here and that's a distinguishing factor from this war that you are case well he actually received an affidavit from a government official which it's part of the records that it went before the book the b i a i thought though that that record from the government official and the letter from the lawyer was submitted in support of rd motion to reopen it which is that it's like just good friends question was a good one what which is not before us i mean i can't just keep supplementing the evidence or i suppose you could that that's not the way it's done nineteen decision of the board of the great deal gives the two reasons for rejecting the nd motion to reopen number one that the letters don't reflect materially change country conditions because of this ongoing conflict between the security forces and a terrorist group so no change they say and further no evidence that the government the un willing to completely unable to protect and at the time the board decided by at the time they issued this decision correct me if i'm wrong but it's my understanding that the statement from the government official in the letter from the lawyer or not at that point in the record is that might be mistaken but it looks like it's a twenty six dollars page document or so do you know where or can you just point us to where that affidavit is in that statement from that government official is what page specifically in the wait well now that's fine your view though or your your understanding is that it was in response to judge wood's question is that it was in those two documents in fact were part of the nd as opposed to the  motion to reopen and for me that's an important question because it was my under our guest that the government letter and the lawyer letter come in only a rd and if that's the case then i don't know how we rely on them in reviewing for disposition the nd one protect security officers is that they built compounds for them to live in but it was my understanding that those compounds are for people who are currently security officers i did not understand that the government of y helpful with respect to what must must be a large number of people with prior experience in security forces but the news are you're right there may be other evidence that you have which is  examined judge scott are going to the question that we were asking your adversary here it looks like on page fifteen of your read brief that you share the understanding that was conveyed in judge which question that the rd motion to reopen from february of two thousand and twenty contained that document from the algerian government official in the algerian lawyer  in an effort to cure deficiencies with some of the proof on the nd motion to reopen is that your understanding of what the filing show yes that's right that's right my  algeria and then the letter from the brother correct oh yes that's right that's right as well as some news articles about right terrorism just aren't going to do anything to protect somebody from terrorism still allows us to require that person be removed to that country in the near certain knowledge that they'll be killed that would keep me awake at night unable to protect the protect that individual so i don't i don't believe the evidence that rises and so that to that level here either you or the court were to consider that and as an additional point you know there's there's no indication that certainly says exactly what you just said and i'm certainly prepared to believe there's been a very long standing conflict between the security forces both president passed on one side and the terrorists or the other side it's another thing to eat quite a general conflict in a country where you know we basically say we can't solve all the problems of every country in the world with a particular you know we this particular terrorist group you're i would say that the difference is not as great as it as it might seem because as official testified before that he believed that terrorists knew him well and that he was high enough profile and that they would find him  so i think at this point essentially what they have done is it's up purportedly is to put that in writing and i don't think that that's the kind of new threshold of danger that this court has said is require that's on the tiriel change frog and then also point out that if you look at the news article submitted along with the motion to reopen i think they actually indicate that anything that the general conditions are guarding terrorism or not you're having pro somewhat subside previously doesn't change or let alone a material change in the court has made clear that even a cumulative worsening of conditions is not sufficient to establish that new threshold of danger so i don't think there's a case to be made the board abused its considerable discretion in concluding that there was no evidence of a material change in country conditions and then there's a nd independent component i think it is judge brennan  conditions that were describing the war decision also related to thousands of anything that further demonstrates that there has actually been improvement in the situation in algeria perhaps both leaders back to the government's ability to protect and the threat of counsel the court will take