credible in this case the immigration judge found that mr moon was credible however never less required crime writing documentation the second error that the immigration judge made was that she found that the fact that moon had family still in bulgaria undercut his asylum case and she was erroneous because according to this court first family members who are in the home country it does not rebut a presumption of well founded fear once past persecution is shown excuse me the second you need to look at whether the family is similarly situated in the home country and then third whether the family has suffered persecution and in this case the movement has decided that his family has suffered mistreatment in his home country  father had been arrested and beaten because of this turkish ethnicity and his mother and sister are unable to find work except in the tobacco fields and the background documentation shows that turks were relegated to the persecuted he was mistreated in the army he was mistreated his business was destroyed and so he's also not similarly situated to his family in that sense the third error that the immigration judge made was that she found that his trip to israel somehow undercut his asylum case that he was able to return from israel movement but moon provided a possible explanation of why he was able to return from israel and why he believes that he's not able to return now from the united states  explain that when he was in israel he was there on a government program and the government held onto his passport and he was allowed to return at that time and then the fourth area that the immigration judge made is that she basically misconstrued this case she said that service in the military is not persecution and of course moments case is not about service in the military it's about the treatment he experienced while he served in the military movements undisputed credible testimony compels a finding that he suffered past persecution based on his turkish ethnicity this court has consistently held that beatings and physical harm rises to the level of persecution movement suffered a lifetime of mistreatment in his home country because he is turkish you received death threats from the police he suffered daily beatings over an eighteen month period while he served in the military and he also was imprisoned and this was on account of that ethnicity after he was released from the military he was not able to find work he tried many many physicians and w told turned away because he was turkish he was told that that turks screwed the country screwed the come straight screwed up the country and should go back to turkey and then finally when he was able to open up his own restaurant his restaurant he was beaten by the mafia and his restaurant was destroyed shortly after he opened it he went to the police and the police did not help him in fact they threatened him just what happened to mr movement is enough to demonstrate past persecution based on th physical violence that was perpetrated on him it was on account of his turkish identity and this court has held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to show motive and in this case testified that explained that when the market came to his restaurant they said to him go back to turkey you cannot run a business here and they came back a week later and they beat him up and they closed down his business they destroyed his restaurant and they said that he did not comply with change country conditions it must emit more than simply the country conditions report state department country conditions report this court has consistently held that the state department's country conditions report is not sufficient to overcome a we founded fear of future persecution and in this case all the government submitted was the state department country report in addition in order for the government to meet its burden it must show how change country conditions individually impact this applicant and in this case they made no showing of how what they considered to be change country admissions impacted movements case and the board of immigration appeals is required to also do an individualized analysis which it failed to do in this say anything specifically about the mistreatment of churches it makes a very general statement that says that there were elections in one thousand nine hundred six and a new parliament in around the same time it doesn't tell us who was elected it doesn't tell us what platform that president ran democratic party is coming into power so i think the record actually really demonstrates that there has not been changing country conditions the sort of immigration appeals talks about how there are now generally harmonious relations between addition movements to minute an expert witness declaration in which his expert witness explained that none of the problems which have created the entire church spent and had been addressed in any systemic way raiser please the court i'm kyle sampson representing the attorney general this court should affirm the terminations of the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals denying the petitioner asylum in withholding of deportation titian or has failed to show that no reasonable fact recounted some of the allegations made by petitioner noted some inconsistency but then said you know i will give him the benefit of the doubt and find that he's credible therefore this court must take it's true the allegations of mistreatment and the fact that petitioner subjectively believed they were on account of his turkish ethnicity but even assuming those things are true they did not necessarily establish past persecution and and petitioners failed  to carry his burden on that in that respect other evidence in the record substantial evidence supports the immigration judges conclusion that there was no past persecution evidence that military service was compulsory and therefore being conscripted in the military  shows that they were separated which may or may not be discrimination but they were separated and that he then was subject to beatings for various reasons because he didn't finish his task because the military is a harsh thing  established however that the service presented evidence to refer to that rebuts pat the presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution based on past persecution let me move to that part of the argument here of the service presented evidence of the state department country reports that discussed the country conditions in bulgaria and clearly appropriate and perhaps best information on political situations and foreign nations and that they need to be specific in individual eyes here the service specifically presented an advisory opinion that it had obtained from the state department that was an evaluation of the specific information provided in the application made by the petitioner and in fact it's typically addresses each of his concerns and the fundamental change in the supporting the governing coalition third that the applicant left for gary of before you know all these dramatic changes in the government occasioned by the fall of the communist and then later reforms that came along specific an individualized to him then the country profile was annotated and clearly was directed at the specific allegations the petitioner mean i can go through them  but i think there are pretty clear from our briefing i mean the country profile addressed to the change in the government the political party to which this specific petitioner belongs and claim with mistreatment ethnic conflict in the country the changes that come about to try and get control of mafia and other corrupt organization groups the institutional protections f country have been putting in place of the religious element the fact that he testify that he was a member of a minority religion in the country and therefore was subject to mistreatment the report specifically addressed that is la strides it's still a place that's you know it's not perfect and has its problems but there's no substantial evidence supports and nothing in the record compels the conclusion that the petitioner be granted asylum or withholding of deportation specifically well i you know i have addressed each of the things in the context of rebutting the presumption that just one othe regime that came into power they said that there was elections but we don't even know what happened at that time and also just to make a point i think is a really interesting case because it talks about how in order for an applicant to meet their burden they need to submit more than a generalized country conditions report and now the burden is on the government to rebut the fact that my client is eligible for asylum and in order to rebut that presumption they need to submit more than just a generalized country condition report well you do anti turk were coming into power i mean that's the b b c report that came out in february of one thousand nine hundred eighty eight and the expert opinion that said that there was no systemic change that was being made in the country thank you council