mere membership we are showing that mr theodore was specifically targeted in the past for being a member of these two disfavor him one time when he was sitting in a car and he saw his father running out of a building with a cut on his fat and a  machete running after after me and another incident when he was in church and there was a bomb threat i mean these are things that have happened to him that i can show or or provide the reference for future persecution also a hoax case is similarly important here because i believe the parents letters they had that you know one of the fears of don't come back is that the new it says you look to the country conditions the worse the country conditions are the less of an individualized showing that you need to provide right so i don't post you know i'm sorry to interrupt you so but in a post more old is your argument that you need to provide very little now in order to meet change conditions because these situation now is  or worse than it's ever been you have not only private actors but you also have the government are taking in the persecution and the it was whereas in the past it was the government was just allowing these things to happen or they were either unable or unwilling now the government has a hands on approach so the level of individualized risk can be quali less than before so in that regards yes  there is also one other argument that you know other than the argument that the government normally makes that you know it was bad then it's bad now you can't differentiate the  two where i think we've shown it both in saline and post the link in this case and in fact it with rebuttal of one of the cases that the government had cited in their briefs of where when i presented or toll is not that big so really not not an issue here and i don't understand that argument when the church is blown up and people are inside the church who lose their lives does it matter does the death toll really matter and if so you know i'd like to know what is there bright lines you know what how much death is required before the government would constitute or would agree that there has been a change in country conditions i think i mean aren't they really trying to say that the difference between  intolerance and violence is religious intolerance slash violence is different her statement persecution i mean isn't that what the government's trying to do is draw a line between  case but it's always these high profile cases that send a direct message to the majority or ordered to the people who are the oppressors that say look we're with you you know is it en  in your estimation if one church gets fond as horrific as that is is that enough to meet the threshold you look at it and everything that's going on your honor i don't ever i would never just say one of our bill of that is but i'm not ready to concede that point you know it's you're looking at all of the of circumstances and with everything else when you have a church that's blown up or you know again this goes to future fear of harm right while this case was pending you have the three suicide bombers detonating three churches at the f the government allowing it to happen the government taking an active role you know when when when the government actually did then i says it really was another not just the same time but it's the again the intensity the frequency the fact that the government is allowing you to have and the fact that even in the religious freedom reports the sixty year old christian lady that for the st time was in indonesia on shari'a or muslim law not civil law and indonesia always thank you good morning ma'am please the court my name is jeff i'm here on behalf of the attorney general in his case the board properly denied a motion to reopen and the reason there when you was a showing of individualized risk of harm and so here in this case you don't have that i don't think that you need to remain and for the word to articulate why this case is different mean i think that the word properly looked at the evidence a lot of the evidence that was submitted in support of the motion to reopen if you look at the record that was before the immigration judge and it was before the the v a and then actually motion to reopen was filed that that's saying nothing has changed it's the same there's there's no showing of that individual as risk so i don't think that you have to remain unanswered you're find out many other side said that in certain situations the showing of individual lives risk is minimized and i think the case law in so at least supports that theory why is that the case here where there are there is that there is extensive evidence in this those two i think was letters by family members or things like that when you look at the letters in this case the family members are just talking about generalized invasions in indonesia and there's no evidence to suggest that they were attached or that any of these jihadi groups are actually specifically targeting this family this particular i'm sure yes with the government ever conceived could generalize conditions be so bad that  it was self evident maybe your honor i mean i don't think that that's this case i mean this is the the law requires a showing of individualized risk and to read open there must be material change these are these are things that are required so i in so if you look at the saline case for example then you can you still have you can have the finding that circumstances have changed but even so in the court me clearly you still have to have an individualized evidence submitted that mr theodore himself would be a target of attacks or any member of his family who continue to live in indonesia a lot of it is just generalized very similar to the articles that he submitted that's not actually did demonstrate and in one of the cases it was an attack on the families church itself was a church of aids and the family in indonesia had been an out those are the sorts of things that are required to establish that individual lies risk states you would never be able to show when you require their house so your honor did you hear if that's not the case if we have his family members that are still in indonesia and all of this was litigated all of this was brought up in earlier litigation it was before this court i mean this all of the sorts allegations that he's making now were really good and were heard and this court found that he failed to have a sufficient showing of individualized risk of harm and in frankly the court was right it was right then and it should you it should hold the same again to the public the general public not as opposed to other members within the same group so here mr theodore has met the the risk showing given the new backdrop of what's happening in indonesia and for this reason your honor we would ask that the court grant is addition and