and as i was saying the briefs in this case leave the distinct impression that the parties are evaluating the board's decision regarding the timeliness of ms corps motion under two different legal  motions to reopen relating to asylum and withholding claims from the norm all numerical and time limits on motions both require new previously on available evidence material evidence but the i and a says that the motion must be based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality and perhaps because changes in country conditions by definition arise in the country of nationality implementing regulation construes i n a two hundred and forty c seven slightly differently and it requires a showing of changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality so in the motion to reopen that ms corps filed she invoked the plain language of the regulation and she pointed to three changed circumstances that had a risen in india that is her husband's death and two thousand and thirteen which she argued was immaterial because it left her as a widow and there's documentation in the record about foremost it certainly is going to go to the issue of internal relocation but the threshold question in this case is what's the timeliness whether the motion was timely or not and the death of m well your honor it's our view that she never the burden was not on her to do that the burden in this case would have been on the government to establish that she could not safely relocate and that it would be  that she could safely relocate and then it would be reasonable to expect her to do so the problem with the issue of internal relocation as the board never addressed the issue asked persecution but before i come to that let me just deal with this threshold question about to establish here is that the death of the husband occurred in india and it's material because it's it led directly to her in laws blaming her for that and the subsequent death threats that they made to it's family or out of the direct family of ball winder saying well if i could just address that real quickly and it goes back to judg the motion that we filed it it argues that ms course suffered past persecution on account of her family relationship that is as the spouse of ball wender say but at that critical question was never addressed by the board the evidence and the nexus for past persecution is overwhelming your honor i mean if you look at the let me just make one some i mean you may be right parents of a young woman who are against this interfaith or enter caste marriage attack that woman because they feel as if she's dishonored the family that those kinds of cases occur all the time honor but yeah there's a th circuit case in which a woman was made a motion to reopen on the fact because of the fact that her family in india had arranged a marriage for her it wasn't enter cast it wasn't your face she was just the marriage and because she didn't want to go back  and enter into that marriage she was facing persecution at the hands of her own family seven circuits said yes of course that's persecution not account of her family relationship just like in this particular case ms cora she didn't fulfill what the family regarded to be as her responsibilities as wife to ball when you're saying and because she betrayed the family by reporting is instances domestic violence against her they considered that to be a b ising in the country of nationality the board however it never quoted or even the grapple with that regulation and stead it went to the language of the statute and said well these are personnel changes they're not change in country conditions that's because the statute itself talks about changes in country conditions but the regulation implementing it is more broad and if you look at the board's decision they talk about changes a country conditions seven times they never talk about changes change circumstances arising in india they don't actually apply the regulatory standard and if you look at the government's brief they do the same thing twenty times twenty they refer to change country conditions they never wants referred to the actual standard changed circumstances arising and india the board did not apply the regulatory standard this has to go back so that they c and that it's almost impossible to dispute that she was persecuted because of her family relationship and her failure to fulfill her obligations to the family when ball winder raped her she he was she specific her you cannot refuse to be your of my wife when she didn't have female children he beat her and said you're a bad wife for not giving me a son and then when finally when she reported the domestic violence that he had committed against her her in laws said to her essentially that she had betrayed the family she said that indian people don't disclose private matters and you shouldn't talk to the police about your marital problems the issue in this case has been throughout both in the past persecution context and in the context of future persecution that she isn't fulfilling the role that the family sees  appropriate for her to fulfill and the board never addressed that question in the context of past persecution and so judgment does i going back to your question on internal relocation because past persecution will determine which side has the burden of proof with respect to internal relocation we can't even address that question because the board it didn't take the initial step of assessing whether there was past persecution on  we it's our view that out that the board simply didn't grapple with our arguments and because they didn't really grapple with arguments the case has to go back for reconsideration just on that basis alone valid argument which is because of family but whether that qualifies as a social i don't know it's an interesting even stated in her own declaration when she said that the family even you know to be you should be happy your father is and it's what she wanted to get there's no harm came to her they knew that she was related to their family and they knew that she was part of it it would kind of go to the lying the fact that the family was actually honor a few points st the government's claim that the board decided the past persecution issue in an earlier decision it's false it's a gross misrepresentation to the court of what happened in that earlier case addressed the allegations of domestic violence only and considering whether they were changed conditions in the country of a removal and they concluded that to the extent that they represent a change their changes and personal circumstances rather than change is a country it's nd this goes back to this point again this whole argument that the government just made was focused on general changes in country conditions that's not the test onto the thousand and ninety eight involves a woman whose family back in india had arranged a marriage for her that she didn't want to enter into and the issue was again whether or not there were changed circumstances the government made just as they doing now they said this doesn't show some general change in country conditions seven circuits said that's not the test that just is are there change circumstances arising in the country of nationality they said this is a change circumstance a the st off they never addressed the question of past persecution the evidence with regard to past persecution with respect to nexis is overwhelming if you agree with our theory that there can be interest from one million persecution  the evidence is indisputable because again when her husband raped her he said you have to go along with this because you're my wife statements like that are direct evidence because the board never addressed the issue of past persecution they never addressed the nexus question and this becomes directly relevant again to the question of whether she faces future persecution the government is misrepresenting the law when they say that because the husband passed away the there the presumption no longer applies the attorney general recently issued a decision making that same point but both in this case and in that subsequent case by the attorney general they're ignoring the change in regulations they're citing a case that interpreted regulations that preceded the current regulations and they're ignoring an attorney general opinion from attorney general that said specifically it's not about the presumption isn't the scope isn't determined by the persecutors it's determined by the the basis of the they claim and it defines the basis of the claim as the nexus the on account of and the only time that the presumption would not apply to a claim of future persecution is if it's unrelated to the past persecution that's what the regs say the government knows that they know that that case and he has no application to this new regulatory scheme and yet they continue to make that argument not only was the persecutor different from the past persecutor but the nexus was completely different in at m a you had a guy who was st persecuted because of his anti communist beliefs that was the basis of his past persecution his future persecution claim was was a claim that he would be persecuted by the very group that he had it that he had in the past supported and that he was going to be persecuted based on a completely different political opinion and big it's because of the combination of those two things that we lost that case i litigated that and i'm a case but when they finally  in the regulations they were crystal clear that they were taking a narrower reading of and i'm a then the government would have you believe and that's made clear by attorney general new cases opinion in matter of eighty he addressed that very question and he said that the new regulations in the new regulations the scope of the presumption is is determined by the the