to this policy subsequent to her two thousand and four immigration court hearing where she had an censure order i would just also preliminarily point out that i did reference i would point that out also because in that case it was a comparison of country conditions in two thousand and four as here with with subsequent increase marshall campaigns hundred day campaign hundred day battle clean up family planning cleanup campaign these are the are instructions in the record from  from the family planning authorities to local enforcers or local family planning and forstmann personnel in every town all over china and these are directives in turn all directives to those to use any means available any means necessary to ensure that the targets in the target management system targets in fact are women who have violated the  and for with forced sterilization meeting the judge is the immigration judge's order did he consider it let me rephrase that it appears to me that he did consider the situation prior to two thousand and four and then made that comparison to the situation in the current situation with the documents that you submitted verses not making a comparison at all and it appears that his order did indicate that there were those coercive mess measures in place prior to two thousand and four while there were i not there was a prior motion to the immigration judge which is not on review now there were two their prior motions also on this issue of family coercive population control policy however the whole based on the investigation even by consular officials going to food gen and making their investigation report they reported dops their view and a view of  the information from family planning fishel is that it's very rare or almost never happened so that the there has to be a comparison of in general what is the general situation in the enforcement of the family planning policy and even though there might be have been an occasion on a one off basis or anecdotal basis of coersion earlier and what what we have in the record and i think powerful including the u s government's own information from the c e c see that's the congressional executive commission on china set up in part to review the human rights situation relating to the family planning policy which in its still exists and still makes in reports that that forced  is subject to minatory sterilization even though they're born in the united states and there's even a report of a clean up campaign in gen which is this is targeting specifically those individuals who have two daughters because the government right i write the i guess presumes that that chinese couples would like to have assigned to carry the family name this family missed  know sterilizations in the past ten years and and isolated cases only that comparing that to the active campaigns militaristic style that may please the court nicholas harling for the respondent in this case the board acted within its discretion to deny the motion to reopen when ms a failed to demonstrate a material change in china's family planning policy between her scheduled two thousand four hearing and her twenty fifteen motion to reopen in this case the record is voluminous and one thing that is really important is the dates because to establish change circumstances we have to look at what documents are establishing the bas e before two thousand ford around two thousand and four and then what documents are demonstrating the prevailing situation at the time that it is filed her third most reopened in tw and looking at these documents the board concluded that two aspects of china's family planning policy had remained consistent the first being that the implementation of the family planning policy varied greatly by locality and also that the violators face similar foresman tactics as noted in the government's brief when the board analyze the implementation of the policy it cited the one thousand nine hundred five country reports and the two thousand  diplomatic cables these documents reference and that implementation vary from place to place and that was a lack of uniformity as well and then the board looked jump forward to two thousand and twelve and twenty thirteen country report which referenced enforcement varying significantly and the twenty twelve u n h c r report which specifically referenced to jan and said quote highly arbitrary and extremely an even policy implementation so on the issue of implementation the board acted within its discretion to establish a baseline in two thousand and four there and before and then also look at documents that were roughly within two or three years of the twenty fifteen most reopen and they did remedial measures in quotes were also taken infusion province to induce some individuals to undergo abortions in the name of compliance with the family planning c c the motion yes and that in fact the term remedial measures in quotes was not used in that report it didn't appear until the two thousand and five report but i think with the with the board is doing is when it stops the baseline it's going back to one thousand nine hundred five we know that that is referencing required sterilization so we know ninety five they're requiring sterilization is there any evidence in the record that in two thousand and four they've changed in that they're no longer requiring sterilization i think that would be the bigger issue of finding error with the bets are not to question the question really is it did that it could be i correctly assess qualitatively to what was wrong with the country conditions at the time of her motion to reopen i think this seventh circuit and third circuit cases that have looked at these exact same documents in the exact same time required those records to record sterilization of forced abortion two thousand and four diplomatic cable also referenced involuntary abortions and in ninety eight moving and specifically in fujinon there was reference to social pressure and fines as well as  specified remedial measures the board then jumped ahead and looked at documents more closely to the twenty fifteen most reopen specifically the c e c see reports which referenced mandatory abortions talked about forced abortion and sterilization so for these reasons it's the government's position that the board took the documents that were presented established a baseline and then compared it to the conditions around the time of the tw fifteen motion to reopen whether any further questions from the panel social pressure and finds no one is arguing that that didn't exist both before and after the two thousand and four but rather the key is the campaigns and  and then made that comparison to the two thousand and fourteen well i would just as the court to consider the board has said that all of those reports as as expressed in the j's are us the you know th case did find that they were coercive measures on gulley and he even used the word to the media measures at some point but did find that those measures were ongoing before two thousand and four he didn't well right but they're  isolated isolated examples the two thousand and four says it's uses the word isolated cases so so they could have been isolated cases but where an isolated case doesn't make a well founded fear of show a change of country condition