this court's ruling in multi day i shop in which the court held that the critical question is not whether the changed circumstances relates to petitioners the original asylum application rather the critical question is whether the changed condition particularly the september eleventh terrorist attacks of two thousand and one that axis of evil declaration of iran in january two thousand and two by president bush the success of hard liner candidates and iran and  renewed backlash against the reform movement and restriction of council yes i appreciate your reference to multi but one thing you're forgetting is that she has to have had some experience of persecution herself and isn't the record devoid of iran have been in the united states or been there for a very long arm of the new europe are in quotes westernized well it would qualify under your description right well not only that but she's also a outspoken critic of the the current regime in iran and she just i mean i understood i really have a lot of empathy for your client i really do and i have a lot of empathy for almost a whole women in iran but the fact of the matter is we're we're bound by the statute whether we like it or not and unfortunately in this case without an individualized experience of persecution there i don't see how you make your case counsel why am i wrong for your honor  change the regime and we've got some hardliners over there it's a bad place that a person like her  asking us to do is to change the law in a way that it's entirely speculative anybody from any country based upon the law that you are proposing that we in effect in act could say you know if i were back in whatever country i would do x y and z that would get me in trouble therefore i'm entitled to asylum you know not what you're asking us to do no your honor what i am asking for is this court to follow the same a egypt yes his problems occurred in egypt yes and he has the predicate of having been there done the things that we were concerned about your client has not been in iran doing the things that she is concerned about killed trying to get a little humor already determined that the petitioner did not qualify for asylum and the question here is whether there have been changed circumstances since that hearing and the board very specifically looked at the evidence that was before the immigration court in two thousand and i draw the court's attention to one thing that the court cited and that is the one hundred ninety nine country report which was in evidence before the immigration judge and there's a passage in the record at four forty six which also clears it to sixty might and you don't get what's wrong with that because your honor you don't get there unless you prove that your motion should be granted and the board found in its discretion its very broad discretion at what point counsel to the to the record close so the record in two thousand that was in the record when this court affirmed the removal order in two thousand and four do we revisit that issue and based on one the idea that it's remains bad is not enough the idea that it's not a place that i would want to move to where the court might not want to move to yeah that's great but so is most of the rest of the world the question here is not whether iran is a bad place social group in general concept the question is whether there's different evidence of a change since this last this case class came around that would qualify for reopening and that the petitioner very distinctly attempts to to just separate herself from just women in general by saying that she is a westernized woman and i think that it would be wrong for the course to create exception for people who remain in this country a long time out of and they are founded in the record specifically a country commission report which says that which was before the court in two thousand that said the very same thing is that you know there are three report that was introduced as grounds for reopening it may not after you're taking the stuff out of whole cloth spending a little part of the opinion without looking at the facts i ask you before whether your client had been involved in iran in doing these things you admitted she has not our case law clearly requires that she do stuff so i'm just asking you just a straight out you're asking us to in effect get this to an on bond so that we can change our case law because short of that is a three judge panel we have no ability to overturn o you had somebody who was in country who did the kinds of things that were the predicate for the release that you're talking about your client has never done in iraq ron what serves as the predicate for this you've admitted that the she didn't even if she didn't have an assigned cleaning two thousand multi pass when the critical question is whether she hasn't signed things now even if the country is it if it was in a totally changed over there you still have to have had motion to reopen of intensified persecutions against coptic christians in egypt and based on this record the court found that there were sufficient changes for this for reopening that this  to the culture of this country and  expressed their views about women's rights suffering torture flogging executions beheadings and  at the time she left the country with for close an opportunity to reopen w conditions over there with their respect i have i mean i'm grateful that we're all aware of what's going on in the world but with this is a court of law and in a court of law we unless there's something on which we can take you just feel noticed