its discretion in denying mr lean's motion to reopen in the face of evidence in the administrative record establishing that country conditions in his country nationality indonesia have markedly changed  in particular there have been dramatic rises of religious persecution threats violence against chinese christians in the country as well as the failure of the indonesian government to address these issues and to prevent such abuses from occurring what's pacific threats and violence directed at christians are cited in the materials they find your honor v we would  administrator of the record that mr lien provided to the contained numerous exhibits citing among other things the dramatic increases of violence against religious minorities and a period of two thousand and seven to two thousand and fourteen a twenty five percent increase the evidence also exists showed a further thirty three percent increase in religious violence between the years twenty four teen and twenty fifteen the evidence also showed dangerous and lethal attacks against religious minorities including christians in two thousand and sixteen these included bombings of churches attacks on that abuses of the freedom of religion and freedom of belief in indonesia have continued and intensified over this period of time and so looking at it in total the violence against religious minorities and in particular chinese christians both the chinese population as well as the christian population in indonesia has markedly changed and we submit that it has now become necessary change country conditions required under  statutes as well as the implementing regulations for granting mr lean's motion to reopen jury but the change needs of the material right yes your honor how much change in a country is material change your whether it's material or yes your honor we are not there is no hard line rule whether on a quantitative our qualitative basis saying at this point changes in the country have become material as required under the implementing statute as well as the implementing regulations however we would point your honor to and with all due respect to a fellow members of the our who are just the argument for the court we have a situation where there are  us either quantity into or quality of changed it rises to the level of material or is it we know we see it sort of test the c discretion and we would point out your honor that the same types similar types of evidence for among other things the violence against christians during the relevant period issues such as the rise of islamic extremism what part of the country that occurs in indonesia is a big country and you know there are reports there's evidence in the record i think that there is a shari'a movement in the bond area right yes and i don't recall was just really him from that area know he is not from the bondage does that matter if if the big country like indonesia has a lot of trouble in one area one province or state  but the petitioner is not from that area does that make a difference your honor i guess that it could make a difference in certain situations but what we do does it make a difference for us or is that just something to be dealt with and remit it we've got a lot of cases of talk about relocation within country right would be a hassle or suffering in one area but but there there's evidence in the record that the agency will sometimes say but you can be you'd be fined in a different part of the country is that something that if that's true in this case that the trouble is predominantly in bond achi and liam is not from the air is that something that the agency would take cognizance of on really interest that something that we should pay attention to this moment we would submit that that would be a matter that would be properly before the order to consider and returning to your honor's question about the location of where these incidents are currently are your out of correctly pointed to some of the issues that were arising in the region in particular the implementation of sharia principles and laws  we submit that the evidentiary record the ministry of record that was before to be i a e a showed that the shari'a issues the islamic extremist extremism issues were not localized in fact they metastasized they went across the country among other things there the national government the indonesian national government has indicated that it will now implement shari'a principles into the national laws this and so needed to go back and re examine the situation based upon that are you contending here that could be i ignored certain things in the record similar to  our opinion in shang where we said well they explained certain things but they didn't touch on other things and they need to to go back and look at that again is that is that what you're contending because i'm confused as to precisely your argument contending that the i a e a here ignored certain things in the record of that's correct your honor among other things to turn to the first point after our point about regarding to evangelical point there are points there are excuse me evangelical christianity would have been targeted because of the seventh day adventist strict observance of among other things a saturday sabbath as well as the particularized belief of evangelism but we would did look at among other things the evangelical aspect of that petition or it is evident that the evangelical aspect of mr mr c attack in that matter was in ways a proxy  to describe public expressions of christian faith one of their the evangelicalism is the going out and spreading of the christian gospel and the what  change country circumstances the subsequent decisions for him to be on a c e o tang similarly hold and notably do not rely on a evangelical aspect in fact it turned to facts in the record about increasing violence against christians and religious minorities generally as well as the rise of islamic extremism and the threats of persecution of christians would face and light of those changing circumstances in the country those are one judge rulings are they not that's correct your honor they are one judge ruling is and it is correct that this court's precedent have stated that these one judge caution the the b i a e a has aired here by failing to consider similar record evidence and directly addressing it in its opinion and so we submit that a proper consideration of such evidence should be it's notable that mr r hock was tried and convicted on these on this past me and all not because of something he said to denigrate the muslim religion or really any religion for that matter  really it was when he was attempting to bridge a religious divide i encouraging the population the muslim population that they need not be tied to voting only for muslims but instead that they could openly in a democratic country such as in egypt vote for christians and the the response that followed there after by the islamic hard line groups as well as the government blasphemy laws in indonesia are now being used in a way they had not been used before in particular to persecute and to target christians in a way that had not been had not previously existed in the country consider all the evidence is especially high when there's an allegation of change conditions looking at the a decision here there's one paragraph that addresses the exhibits and cites seven doesn't cite make statements about the fact that this discrimination violence continues to  exist and it's really nothing but the same old same old if you will but i'm bothered by the fact that several of the exhibits there are cited contain it's not just the same old thing it would show that there are increasing tensions and then in addition there are at least eight or ten other exhibits that contain a lot of evidence of the same thing the creeping islamisation of the country the coalescing of an islamic vote a growing trend of discriminating a lot of these things are cited in other exhibits that aren't even reference so it's a long question but if it's a understand it would judge rebels getting is absolutely was very cases opinion saying the board this is a sort of a gotcha test where the third circuit looks to see if the board mentioned every piece of evidence on the record so a with ya there but what's little odd about this case is that there were piece of the record mentioned in support of the board's decision denying relief that have contained in those very exhibits information that's very supportive of williams clearly and i don't see the board wrestling with that and i could go through some of them i mean judge or indulgence much and so forth so can you can you deal with i mean one of them one of those exhibits to cater to fouls in churches have been closed in the last decade right to the board acknowledge that and wrestle with that and say well it's not helpful to leave him because he's from a different part of the country or those churches disagree with that case because well i mean i don't acknowledge any creeping at all they just say it's the same old it just continues to exist tensions have existed since their independence and they have done periodic lee it's business as usual they don't acknowledge even any any creeping and over we're talking about two thousand and three are we not we are two thousand and three to two thousand and eighteen me even if it's creeping it could have been materially changed conditions could be i would still argue that there's no error in the board's statement that this is a longstanding problem and even with the creeping issues if the court actually dives into the record of numbers that we're talking about in religious violence from twenty fourteen to twenty fifteen so in terms in terms of actual raw data that was an increase from one hundred seventy sat in incidents to two hundred thirty six incidents and this is in a country  two hundred sixty million people well that may be what the b i a says henri man when we say look at all these statistics but it looks like they didn't even consider it i mean i'm just looking at the sez he article reports submitted by the respondent show that discrimination mounts continued to exist blasphemy laws have been repealed documents show there's a long standing problem the bar other than materially change conditions and to my mind there's a lot of evidence in what has been provided by the petition it says this is ratcheting up a dangerous point and that the i a e a i mean to be i could acknowledge it and say ok we see that they're saying it's ratcheting up but we really don't have enough evidence of that but they don't even acknowledge that and they did not say that they did not acknowledge it and explicit terms like that but when the court looks at the actual numbers like i mentioned it's infinite as small there's a difference when one hundred five how the church  innocuous reasons for purposes of this claim if they were closed because the people were terrified to go to church then that would seem to really support liam's claim but how i would rule because of the board's court just look at the record and i don't know  agency have to at least reference guide and take cognizance of it and give the kind of response you just gave i mean i think you do to kid of could have said something like look this exhibit and then says to reopen you need to plead facts you can't do sort of a document dump over the transom or you just make up a bare bones petition and then attach all kinds of documents is that what you're saying i would actually have a group that i read that far as i can tell were never mention that by the board p p t t w w triple a triple b tripoli triple j triple triple might be holes in it all i know sitting here is the agency didn't even cite any of them it didn't take cognizance of well again like i said the board's not have to get into every single allegation then again there was a ministry deacon he ministers in his community his wife's a deacon stablished has a job sets forth evidence showing increasing religious intolerance and one of these organizations f b i you know the leader ten years ago was put in jail for for bombing that i was ten years ago now they're basically running running the country  that's the same leader that i just mentioned that was part of last me for insulting christianity ok but i would disagree with that character that characterization that they're running the country again if you look at the actual bad numbers the numbers are one hundred seventy seven to two hundred thirty si second motion to reopen but he do you know the agency several parts marketplace do you not accept the possibility that in the last eight years radicalization has taken hold in a lot of places in the world and there is evidence of radical islam and persecution of christians and chinese christians in this record it's a  don't remember the board's opinion to say there's been plenty of change in indonesia but it's not material for these reasons my review opinion more to say that same old same old i would agree i would that case proselytizing was a religious obligation for mr c her time and the board missed that so that's what the issue was in that case so the court noted that the first circuit noted that the country's conditions of evidence appear to be uniquely problematic for deacon any ministers in the community and that says he nothing about how i'm sixty seven hundred dollars a year and says there's nothing about being a religious obligation well that seventh day adventist can be saved and some people have termed it at the same time i didn't read the board to say if he is going to proselytize or maybe he wins but this guy's not a proselytizer he loses it's not but that would be asking i think that's a step too far to  of the administrative record and are statutes and be considered they're not on the back they were doctored and so if you look at even notwithstanding that if you even look at the face of those organizations you can tell that they are not the same case  as in one of those cases was a convert from islam to christianity that suggests a particular set of facts in another case they indicated they submitted evidence that they had been popularized by a newspaper articles these particular petitions have been popularized in news articles in indonesia and that they would make them more vulnerable to attacks in that country again we don't have any of you have it in those cases that's why we can't consider any of those cases as we can consider you know the outcome of those cases so there's a difference between the painting of the christian that was that was one of the worst articles i was and that was in the records laws in place but that article also states that any conduct that violates both national and religious laws such as the selling a bootleg liquor which is with which is the might have voluntarily chosen the public caning in lieu of accepting a lengthy prison sentence under the national laws so to to answer your question here are the issue goes to the materiality issue i think and again like for that reason you just articulated i think there's a victory in this case i think i think the case then on this instance again this is this is a burden of proof case mr mr william just simply did not already last one sort of sides so is the evangelical i think the answer that question is we don't really know there's no evidence in the record he hasn't established that and so you go back and you ask the evangelical if you're talking a huge issue there was awful thing was a religious obligation that's why it was different so it would have to go back to indonesia as a religious obligation attempt to convert muslims to christianity that was a part particular problem in that case which the board missed the board didn't miss anything in this case at least president now so it was a vacancy term came off he he ran for reelection and so on the campaign trail he told an audience that they were being fooled so then you get the resulting public outcry and then there's an indictment but even after the invasion and a half who won a majority of votes and three where elections just didn't win enough to avoid a runoff where he eventually eighty nine last me convictions and in the share that averages out to nine per year so the most recent evidence says between october twenty four thousand and august twenty seventh there were approximately two dozen blasphemy convictions so were exactly because there were twenty tiers isn't it the case that you could stay within the same tier but yet still be having change circumstances occur i would think it would be more reasonable necessarily  myths that there is growing support for some elements of sharia law and says the government is preparing legislation to reflect this and we submit your honor that this represents the growing  islamic extremism and if you look at the same page the ministry of record five seventy seven which shows that seventy three percent of people in a poll supported the introduction of sharia law nationally and eighty about what point do changes because material i what point do a country conditions change sufficiently for the purpose it has to terminate a motion to reopen and again we while we submit there is no to proselytize the agency did not take cognizance of that very material fact in that case that the administrative record does no countries that repress religious exercise it's it's even we could maybe use china for example if if you keep it quiet they reveal it if you're loud about it and they persecute you isn't isn't that just  the facts sometimes turn upon the the vocalism or the the the public nature of the of the religious practice and see it does seem to be different from your client's case and th respect your honor good returning the it certainly doesn't make sense that in certain instances where the vocal in the public expression of the faith can be a determining factor in determining whether there have been materially change country conditions but we would respectfully point to court to those points in syria tank that appear on pages fifty one and fifty two of that decision where the first circuit has listed a number of bullet points that  we know don't focus exclusively on the evangelical nature and the effects on evangelicals and stead it talks about general christian it's not limited t muslim extremists preventing christians from gathering for easter again not talking about evangelicals specifically it talks about the again the same issue to we that we noted and administrate of record  five seventy seven about the enactment of shari'a principles it talks about the attacks on christians in general again not limited or specified to evangelicals but again talking about christians large is no discussion at all about proselytizing instead what we have here is a general description of country conditions as it affects religious minorities in journal as you say is that the same judge that that sign to be ordered here that it that is your honor as you would assume make the assumption that with c a tank being an intervening decision if that judge had it to do over he would have been consistent with his other rulings and reopened yes we certainly would hope so your honor that looking at the same record evidence of the violence the persecution the threats the islamic extremism extremism that has arisen in the country that the same board member looking at the same record of minutes would conclude as he has done after c e o tang that country conditions have changed and that the motion to reopen should have been granted and his failure to do so that we have similar record evidence one day that the b i have decided that it was not sufficient for a motion to reopen and then later on deciding that the same information was sufficient for a motion to reopen we submit constitutes an abuse of discretion and it's arbitrary and capricious for appreciates volunteering of your time in the firm's time and the poor is most appreciative of the excellent argument by both sides and grateful for your your deep knowledge of the matter will