record that things have actually progressively worse in pakistan they were country conditions reports there were some articles and most importantly there was a sworn affidavit submitted by the petition r how do you say they worsened the probably have with the selina case talks about it having to be a qualitatively different evidence that you put on not just quantitative is bad now it's a little bit worse strikes me as a quantitative difference rather qualitative difference how what qualitative differences did you argue your honor the motion had argued that certain significant question is at first i was saying yeah they're worse but you can't just say worse you've got to show us qualitatively different than you referred to as all of bin laden and drones so my question is maybe those are different maybe they're not i don't know but did you so that basically showing off that exasperated their fear of persecution because they're trying that with the social visibility that they predict will they will have because of being perceived as american or western having lived in that city for so long and this sort of tide that in with that evidence or another issue was the personal circumstances and i think this went to the materiality of evidence that was from taxes for almost two decades so the violence inflicted on them by extremist groups is it could be demonstrated its different then what normal pakistanis have to face if i was curious about that too is that kind of a self fulfilling prophecy that if we can get into a country and overstay our our b c in that country then that is creating the evidence why we can't ever go back because there is hostility to the country we've gotten into is that allowing someone to create their own evidence of asylum you're out of this it may be arguable that your honor if this sort of develops over time where the country conditions your like that and it doesn't happen all the countries this is a unique situation where there are many not that you know and there certainly are a lot of countries with enemas against the us for which you would be more danger going back than if you had left in the first place your i could create a presumption but i think if if if if the testimony earth as evidence can be judged in combination i think it could show that at least they did not intend to drag out this matter this long just so this the ground could be developed just the united states travel advisories and to see notifications to americans or at least from my client argues that they'll be perceived as such that they are they are issuing those a lot more than before so this is at least this is what goes to the changed change in the circumstances of suppose in that regard and your are the board the board's denial up our issue with that is we acknowledge that case law this court has decided that the board is not obligated to articulate summary dismissal where they said ok we have this case evidence was presented but we don't believe it satisfies the requirement for the motion to reopen you know is that the case of national body at least it's not terrible to my client but in that case this is the board at least took into consideration the country conditions and made a reference to them and then decided at the end ok this is not  satisfying the material material requirement of the motion to reopen here that there was no reference to anything really no evidence no country conditions i saw something in there i think in the briefs that there were children in this twenty four year old son who's a lawful permanent resident will be applying for u s citizenship within the next year and that opens up this possibility of applying for just a status for the parents if proceedings  terminated so and you know this case was in mediation and we were talking to the response for several months at that time it was prosecutorial discretion candidate over time the government decided that it's  transfer from the department of justice office of immigration litigation i represent respondent this morning with an even lower than microphone will to hear hopefully i won't be too loud now are the board did not abuse its discretion in denying petitions on tonally motion to reopen their proceedings based on changed country conditions because they didn't show change country conditions i did a little graphic myself coming in here comparing the asylum evidence and the motion to reopen evidence and it reasonably telling in the asylum evidence they claimed that pakistan frequently targeted us citizens and us in other assassinations were a constant danger is from the state department reports in his motion to reopen he relies on state department reports saying bombings in that they target u s citizens in two thousand five and two thousand and six according to the asylum application and his evidence large anti western riots and demonstrations rocked pakistan targeting u s and other western businesses including kentucky fried chicken mcdonald's citibank and the department of state also importantly reported that trafficking in persons was a serious problem with men women and children being kidnapped and sold for sexual exploitation and domestic servitude in his hearing his asylum hearing his u s citizen child had just recently been born he doesn't appear in the asylum application apparently the child was born between the time the application was filed and the asylum hearing what he did say application and just internationally reported that following the nine eleven bombings there was an upsurge of targeting killings of west news in pakistan including the wall street journal's daniel pearl in two thousand and two the pakistan assessment two thousand and three reported two thousand to eleven french engineers were killed in suicide bombing several western countries had to call their nonessential staff a terrorist attack the u s consulate in karachi of the i understand your position that things that were were bad and they still are it but he had american citizen child he had all of this at the from the first go around why did he lose them what happened in the first asylum application the immigration judge found that he was not credible and that had to with a different issue on the m q m a tear three terrorist organization which he belonged to which he said was not violent and the i j a in the board both found that was not credible more importantly though or just as important he filed his asylum application late you normally have to file within one year at his asylum hearing he tried to show that that would change circumstances in pakistan making it much worse than it was when he left to justify his latest bad lawyers the immigration judge rejected that saying no but more importantly when he appealed the case a petition for review to this court this court found the same thing and echoed what the immigration judge said that the conditions were no worse then then when you left we have the exact same situation in this case now we understand it's a burden for him but that's not the burden of proof that's not the standard that this court has to apply a lot of times and yes the bottom line is he has not shown qualitatively different evidence and that's what this court requires he's shown as to able said quantitatively different it's a little bit different now but or a little bit more now but it's the same exact evidence great anti american attitude in pakistan foreigners being targeted crime running rampant all of that was in the asylum application there's just no difference now let me ask kind of a left field question that you can simply say you don't know the answer to but i noticed yesterday or today that the turn general session said that on the provision where you can seek asylum because of membership in a social group that you cannot assert that merely because other social groups are oppressing you but you have to prove that it is official government oppression and i don't know whether that's yet official policy and is but is that statement by the attorney general yesterday does that because here he's alleging a lot of his oppression comes not from the government but from this m q m and other other private organizations so does judge it was sessions statements impact us at all i believe they do i've not read a newspaper this morning i did not hear what my boy said  i think he filed his children and his wife with a group of petitioners petition just so it is a danger to them so if he proves that he's under no more danger at all but if he says look the pakistanis do not like people born in the us to come into their country so i'd be ok but my child isn't and therefore i want to silent that would be a valid legal argument i application they're on the docket right now so they can stay the younger son is a u s citizen now it's a tough choice and the government understands that but that child does not have to go back to pakistan ever that child can stay in this country and that is as harsh as that sounds being separate from the parents that's exactly the case not cancellation cases that's the case the court feels faces facing that the petition faces he's got the choice he has said he will take the child back but he doesn't have to go further there's nothing to prevent him from finding a third country that he could go to he doesn't have to return to pakistan he has to leave the united states but if he can find somewhere else that would take him he's free to go there so the choice isn't quite that terrible for him he's got options he's got to figure out what he wants to do but let me just ask you about something that you said with regard to general sessions you said you have to follow a policy but for the future you do but is are you suggesting that you can  right i have not read the attorney general statement i believe it's probably in line with what the law was before on able and on went to the extent it's a change it wouldn't affect this no it would have a say on this but doesn't matter because there really is no case here in the government's view and subject to further questions i see i'm almost out of time i thank the court for its consideration have a nice day please counsel is right that government looks at he doesn't have to go but usually in hardship cases the arch is looked at in two scenarios if that if the person who's to experience hardship is separated or has to  move on to the next case united states versus quackenbush