in the first two cases if i can just ask counsel it's the same council of similar issues are you prepared to just argue this cases as one of them make sure that you have enough time and to the extent that we need to differentiate between between the two petitioners but i we can i think we can do that in that case the first cases that we'll hear will be no bobbin versus lynch and robo versus lynch counsel you may approach abused its discretion and denying their motion to reopen the starting point is that in multi b ashcroft the court specifically held that evidence of continuing violence can constitute change conditions even when the same type of violence has occurred before so under multi what evidence is needed to show change country conditions necessary to permit a motion to reopen our position especially in light of that the board had held in its previous decision when it the night asylum to the petitioners that the indonesian government was improving relations between the religions is that we need to show documentary evidence of increased violence intensified attacks against minority groups decreasing government involvement in protecting those groups and government participation persecution in persecution this is the kind of evidence that is needed to show change conditions and this is exactly the evidence that we provided what what evidence counsel in the in the  continuing violence in indonesia would show that your clients will be targeted yes or now if if i may just continue a little bit and now time right back into that your honor so the evidence that we submitted this rebuts what the board had said in its prior decision so therefore we have a change now the government says that there is no change because this kind of violence has happened before that's really all what their brief shows and we don't disagree that that is true violence against christians in indonesia has been ongoing for many years but that really misses the point and it's not whether that this type of violence has occurred before but that the new violence is qualitatively different so our evidence shows that there is an upsurge in radicalism and that administr record one forty six in mid two thousand and twelve there were double the incidents of violence over the previous years that's at the administrative record one fifty eight the government now fails to protect that record one forty the government is protecting radical militant groups instead of religious minorities that's one seventy two one forty three one thirty two one thirty seven and now that officials are forcing the destruction of churches rather than just allowing it to happen and that's at one thirty four and one sixty two you're on i'm still mindful of your question i'm going to answer in just a minute so if i understand the question your honor you're looking at particular lies what about this petitioner as opposed to all that are similarly situated in indonesia well he's going to stand out at the forefront he's returning back from the united states after approximately what fifteen sixteen years of living here he has three united states citizen children the children now are the ages of twelve ten and five these children do not speak indonesian so when he returns he's returning as someone who has not lived in indonesia for many years and it's not going to be hard to that feels to me like a very different argument it's an argument that we have heard made in other contexts that is that people returning for example people going back to mexico say well people coming back to mexico are persecuted because they are perceived to be wealthier because they were in the united or i'm part of a special social group of persons returning to mexico after having lived after having lived someplace else that's a very different ground from saying i'm being persecuted because i'm seventh day adventist so i thought i thought the religion was was was what your claim was this sounds like a very different well quite intertwined you're on of the religion and where the fact that he's living in america where it's perceived to be a christian country we're after this this video that went viral in indonesia called the innocence of muslims where all of that all of many moderate muslims and the fanatical muslims took to the streets to protest against america and americans whatever so you have in the record shows that that people in indonesia are more likely to persecute christians returning from the united states to indonesia after some time abroad well what i do have is this you know i have pictures of american flags being burned i have pictures of signs america go to hell i have the american embassy that it shut its door for three days you know i have people in the streets  know yelling at the feds to not just christians but also to americans and at this point because his children are american that also persecution to them is also persecution to him and i believe the case for that was similar beholder which was decided just a little while ago but for him specifically one of the name you know after he received a letter from his brother who said look one of the neighbors who knows that you live in america who knows that you have united states citizen children said quote unquote if your brother is a crazy american he will be dead here and that's at administrative record page fifty five and i'm going to quote some more let these americans come here we will show them what happens to people who insult the prophet and  i quote unquote i will look for your american brother when he comes home and the letter and and i fear that they will get you so you're on it there is particular  to this particular petitioner i mean let me go back just a little bit you talked about multi multi says that change circumstances is not whether the allegations bear some connection but rather whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim has now well founded fear but so we're talking about the word sufficiently and what is my standard or review on a motion to reopen its  i'm sorry i believe it's they have discretion but now i don't think you have discretion so if there's what does that mean to you that a judge has a discretionary standard of review well you are  mean tell me what that means as well because i'm going to suggest that that means that there can be evidence in the record that helps you but if there is sufficient evidence in the record that doesn't help you i can't undo it even if i could agree with you right so there's and so i look at the record that was prior in front of the if you will the immigration services and i look at the the stuff that you have now or the evidence scuse me for saying stuff the evidence that you put in front of the immigration services this time and i'm trying to say can i say that this record is just so clear that they used their discretion in saying that it's a sufficient change going on or if i compare the two there's not much difference so how can i say that they made such a radical decision by saying that it had not sufficiently changed so your honor i'm looking at the administrative record on page one ninety four where the previous order from the board states that the united states department of state's two thousand and seven country reports on human rights practices for indonesia dated march two thousand and eight i don't know if i is a few sporadic incidents of tension between religious groups but also indicates that there have been improvements in the relations between religions the united states two thousand and six international religious freedom report harassment back home very similar to melty ok but if you take a look at the record now and i'm going to point to a is  one fifty eight of the administrative record and tara non governmental organization recorded one hundred twenty nine incidents of violence and one hundred seventy nine violations of religious freedom from january through june this year this is now we're talking about two thousand and twelve these numbers are already more than half of last year's total which had two hundred forty four incidents and two hundred ninety who don't think the language had nothing to do with the culture when they're here they're teenagers so they're part of this culture we're all part of the culture you go to other countries you'll say what the difference between our culture and some of the cultures in the other places and you have a fact to families here first record shows they've been good citizens so we really want to take these people and throw him out of the country with their for argument i took the opportunity to contact them again to make sure they had followed the johnson require yes or at the discretion is with the department of homeland security as to delay i contacted the h s back in october on this case i have a kind of a direct contact with the h s here in los angeles where i had one he's no longer there i didn't realize he had left so that was there was a miscommunication direct contact in chief counsel's office in los angeles for ice and he is now i believe an immigration judge and i didn't know that so i sent him an e mail that didn't bounce back about this case and in the crush of of course unfortunately you have to assume based on how similar these two cases are the are the result is likely the same but i can't say one way or the other whether or not absolutely you do know whether t h s reviewed book rivulets case a previously for an exercise discretion but ultimately whether or not they elect to offer that grace to the alien it is up to them they are the prosecutor you know when they factor with the h s so perhaps it's a change in who is making the decisions and actual people involved it is really up to each office though looking at the facts of each case whether or not they want to exercise their discretion on that particular set offices here you have individuals that overstayed visas they had lawful presence and overstayed perhaps this office holds that in higher regard as some type of more serious immigration violations of children born in this i believe it is trying to remember based on the timing whether or not they've accrued enough lawful presence because they didn't they were green card holders they'd have to be here for i believe ten years prior to the issuance of a notice to appear and of presence that it's not a lawful permanent resident house to accrue ten years of presence united states prior to applying for a cancellation removal that ten years that clock stops as soon as the individual is served with a notice to appear and so in this case their clocks stopped about three and i believe three in four years of my math is correct for each separate petitioner upon the surface of the us to appear in this case i don't have the statutory cite isolated incidents of obviously understandably unfortunate unfortunate well you know this is a big country yes it is are almost as many people live there as live live there that is that's correct i believe two hundred thirty million now should have an answer from them within i would imagine a couple of weeks at most so if the court could await a response from from me on that but otherwise the agency properly exercised its discretion in both of these whether or not each each one can demonstrate some kind of individualized risk the risk that counsel offered is itself qualitatively different than his religious based claim that it's based on being a westernized indonesian that is a completely different group individualized risk analysis stems from the conclusion that there is a disfavored group this is a conclusion requires the conclusion that there is now a disfavored group of westernized individuals living in indonesia that's a totally separate in the board exercise its discretion here reviewed the case reviewed all the evidence there's no suggestion that they overlooked any any evidence and as your honor noted question is whether or not this case whether the facts are qualitatively different now whether or not the situation has completely not completely changed but is adequately different to demonstrate what was previously a failing case is now a successful case and they simply fail to do so thank you counsel mr hockey to give you time for a response is thank you you know it always seems to be the risk of the response of the government that things in indonesia are bad they've always been bad and that's just the way it is and that's how it's going to be and petitioners are not going to be able to meet their burden but when you take a look over time you can say that the situation in is and proving in fact it's going the other way it is deteriorating and  to a point where people like mr know bob and or people like mr rivaldo who are returning to indonesia will be singled out in fact counsel brought up the point disfavor group analysis they all are both nepal and river have been deemed to be part of the disfavored group as being as being christian in indonesia under tumble on the holder so they're what they need to show or the risk that they need to show is diminished by the fact that they are part of this disfavored group and a threat yeah there's a standing death threat again that's correct that's correct your honor and just you know since we're talking about equities and we're talking about the lack of government hospitals his wife is a registered nurse they they're doing nothing but good in the united states these are people that are part of our culture these are people that are trying just to make a better life and go back to a place where of where they will be discriminated against or will be killed and mr r three children or he writes to me says that is all this has been a bright student who has always had straight a's and rolled in on a row and gate programs his middle child is a break bright student straight a's and had received multiple words such as student of the month principal ward an excellent reader award she is also in the gate program and his youngest meredith who is also a u s citizen has also received the words a student of the month and he him selfe is a deacon at the church he himself uses his time in the music ministry and also in helping mentoring the young and he currently works as a nun told health worker an emergency department in redlands community hospital and his wife is a c any right to make the government exercise just christian no but you do have all we have a right to do is look at this case and we can prod we can encourage and you've had one of the better encourage years right here trying to but i know that too many people listen i mean they're trying to trying to do the encouragement and you've heard that after that if that can happen and it seems to me that you submitted these same facts to the b i and to the i j a and all they have to have is some substantial evidence in the record to sustain they're doing and we have an abuse of discretion standard or view as you've told us that doesn't mean that this court can make those decisions that means this court has to look at the evidence and determine if there's evidence to sustain what the underlying court did and i was a d j once and i liked my decision sustained and so when i was in that situation i laid out the evidence which would sustain it and if that evidence was there it didn't matter what the ninth circuit won do they were stuck because i had substantial evidence and the problem is here that we're we're stuck with the same thing i mean judge praeger son is a wonderful person and he's laying out the the best he can the equities of the situation but i'm trying to make you and i hope you understand because you're pretty smart at this isn't your first time to the well it isn't the first time you've ever been involved that we have standards a review also that we must sustain and that if we can't go around those standards or we throw the whole thing out and then it's just a matter of who you appear in front of you appear in front of a hard nose or illusion here in front of an easy guy you don't you understand that i do  that there was sufficient risk of danger to their life this common sense to me that if you're going to send them back to