ok mr nicholas marquis and we've got this case set for just ten minutes per side so please choose your words appropriately i will your honor  appeals denial of a motion to reopen mr technically was ordered granted voluntary departure back in two thousand and six he took it up on appeal with his mother's case in two thousand and reopen based on changed circumstances the motion to reopen consisted of approximately one hundred thirty five pages it consisted of a declaration from an expert system of additional information and changed country conditions in  specifically the expert had indicated several three reasons one being that mr tec lee was now of military age and he did not apply to the military in his country of eritrea at the time of his removal proceedings he was a minor started when he was nine years old by the time there was a decision he was sixteen at the removal stage before the immigration judge the judge had mr directly filed his own asylum application also probably when he did that sixteen year sixteen yes and then he went up through the system by the time this court in two thousand and he was over twenty one so he wouldn't of been he wouldn't have been required to serve it sixteen he is required to serve as an adult in his army and eritrea so he still would have been required to serve if you returned back to his country and he wouldn't serve because he didn't own independent application of a five eight nine yeah so he wouldn't have been subject to the military condition after he had he is individual hearing with the immigration judge because at the time the his individual hearing was conducted he was a derivative off of his mother's application that was filed i believe in one thousand nine hundred ninety seven so he wouldn't have been subject to any military conscription at the time that he was in front of the i j a when the evidentiary hearing would have come about now that's in two thousand and fourteen we filed a motion to reopen not only for the military bases but in the country conditions have changed gotten worse we cited examples we cited to state reports but the expert also said that in the first hearing there was a there was also an expert declaration correct that's correct but that was back with the mother's application when he was only submitted connection with the mother's application and that's correct your honor so the i j did not consider it when he was ruling on your client's at the time that mr tech lease case was proceeding before the other than he was a derivative so there was never any discussion about military service or anything like that in the underlying theory before the i j a so when we get to the b s a with a motion to reopen as the court can see we get a paragraph and maybe a quarter of a decision denying it we don't have any facts on what the b i relied on to deny it other than to think that the information was in that sufficient to reflect that there is a reasonable possibility that the respondent would be targeted for harm but there's nothing behind that to say what it is its conclusion this court has routinely said boilerplate decisions are not sufficient to sustain a decision and there arbitrary here the b a a again in a paragraph dismiss is this motion to reopen it doesn't it all it says is we've you respond that he has you know because he is art he has because he's submit he's made a prime official case that he will be persecuted on one of the protected grounds that being that he's not within the military service and political that's not if you look at the protected it both that's what we say he's not supporting the military by being involved in the military and he subject to being persecuted because that what we can't even address that because the b s a doesn't give us any facts to rely to argue against so if you  register for the military because that is a political situation or because that's required by the policy the political a government to register for the military and when you don't register for the military it's viewed as what if you don't it's viewed as you're persecuted because you didn't apply to the military at least that's what the expert seems to indicate is it viewed as a  imputed political opinion that he doesn't support the government yes or i would agree that i would say it could be imputed political opinion because he's not supporting the government if you remember the mother's prior application that was denied was in part political opinion based on her husband's involvement and that they didn't support the government when the dictator  was removed so are you also saying that there is a protected social group of people eligible or were required to serve in the military who haven't done that you can argue that there is a protected group in those who have not registered for the military another group that is addressed by the expert is returning from the country who were not raised in eritrea are subject to persecution expert also addresses that how can he register for the military there if he's over here he can't register for the military if he's over here and what we're saying is because he didn't register for the military he will be persecuted there upon return it's the court saying well you've got to step forward and do something affirmative take this path we can't even get there because i'm not saying anything i'm just asking you a question and what i'm saying is you know we were reviewing the b a decision for an abuse of discretion and we can't even go there because they didn't give any factual basis in when they denied the application or that the motion to reopen that's our primary argument is they didn't look at the expert opinion they didn't look at the country conditions that were added to it they didn't look at the information that was provided when we filed the motion to reopen it they just issued a one line saying he didn't know that he couldn't pass the one year or that the statute of limitation the ninety day for filing and he hadn't established conditions that would get around that the changing country conditions there's no there's no decision even on that and what we're saying is that is an abuse of discretion and that's why this matter should may please the court victor lawrence on behalf of the tourney general this court should deny this petition for review because the board acted within its considerable discretion when it denied the petitioners motion to reopen as this court is aware motions to reopen  qualitatively different and we and to prove that point we in my in our brief we quoted from the two thousand and three state department report and the two thousand and thirteen state department report with respect to their conclusions of country conditions in the and if you look at that in our brief they're remarkably similar there's nothing that's considerably changed well he has the experts the expert declaration which again your honor indicate he had a debt expert declaration serious matters that somebody who's been out of the country for a long time goes back you know the eritrean government is not such people that they didn't serve in the military focus that he said that was where there were material changes with respect to the individual mr technically had to do with the fact that he evaded military service and that the country doesn't treat people well military service now the difference though and i my opponent had some of the facts in correct he said that mr technically was sixteen at the time of his immigration proceedings he was actually twenty in two thousand and four he was twenty years old that's when immigration proceedings took place his date of birth was october one thousand nine hundred four that can be found on page five seventy two of the record but also during that time during the original removal proceedings he had he testified himself before the immigration judge that he feared going back because he had of a did military service this isn't a change he said that in two thousand and four now he's saying that again later he was twenty years old in two thousand and four at page one thirty one and one thirty two of the record that's where he says that he feared going back as a result of the fact that he would have to serve in eritrea in military so there there's no change there at all so that his expert i don't remember what mean let me point out one thing that's relevant to this discussion oh also at page five five seven of the record five five seven that's part of the country report that says that all men between the ages of eighteen and forty five required to participate in a national service program so in two thousand and four when he was twenty he was already evading military service he wasn't sixteen percent to the record again that's at page five seventy two he was twenty and and he was already subject to military service at that time so he had already evaded and he had a chance to bring this to the immigration judge's attention then in two thousand and four and now they're acting like it's a new claim that they're bringing ten years later it's not it's completely addressed at the immigration proceedings initially which he took not only to the immigration court but to the board and to this court which denied it's a petition differently that was that conditions now have changed in your chair such that a person like mr ek lee who's been out of the country for many years who did not serve in the military when he should have  before the immigration court at that time the fact that he had evaded service it was brought before the immigration court in two thousand and four and all the facts about his mother's participation in politics and he hope it was brought before the right but it didn't it didn't have the flavor that this current affidavit does yes but but we the court shouldn't be making decisions because he submitted a more robust well actually submitted that first affidavit is correct counsel correct that it was that claim right now whether or not that was also brought in its individual proceedings i'm not certain but i don't think it matters that it was in the record at the time that that declaration was in the record so it doesn't really matter who proceedings because it was all considered with respect to his claim but the principle point is the new expert declaration doesn't raise anything different not materially different and on the private facia question you're hon board only found that he hadn't shown a private face a case with respect to his claim for the convention against torture and that it has to do with acquiescence or did people acquiesce and is torture so no he has this new claim doesn't present any any evidence towards that what the board said that they showed nothing that that would indicate that mr technically would be targeted that hasn't been brought before in his original asylum claim in two thousand four and that's absolutely accurate there's no material change of conditions and there's no individualized relevancy to what his new expert is saying that's any different than he brought before the immigration court in two thousand and four at that time he had his own petition right one thirty two and where he indicates that he knew people that went back at that time who were get given a hard time he said because they didn't didn't do their national service and he indicates that he was feared he could go to jail at that time in two thousand and four because he had fled he could be considered to have abated military service is in the exact same position that's when he was twenty years old and he's thirty seven years old but again pursuant to the record at page five fifty seven they recruit people starting at the age of eighteen so he was just as guilty of evading service when he was twenty years old in two thousand and four as he is now at age thirty seven  said that there's no reason for to be to write on every single contention that's raised by the petitioner but what the board's decision does here is it addresses every single claim that he made yes it's a short opinion but  there's no requirement of how long an opinion has to be to address the issues but the principle things that the board's decision points out is that there were no materially changed circumstances which is supported by the record as i've been indicated i cited from the state department report in two thousand and three and in two thousand and thirteen and they're almost almost identical and number two it says there's no reasonable possibility that that mr tech  lay would be targeted that he's shown any individual lies relevancy to a claim and this court's decision in the body puts a high premium on showing individual rev relevancy how is it relevant to his claim that these conditions have changed case in ins versus rama spazz because where this court found that there was an imputed political opinion as a result of somebody evading military service but that's somebody who actually indicated on the record that he had a conscious and conscientious objection to fighting in the military and that's why the court indicated there was an imputed political opinion the fact that this guy this this individual this alien has not indicated anything of  objection to participating in the military he just indicated that he didn't want to participate participate in the military there's no particular social group that or a political opinion that's been addressed with  indicated in the text of that motion to reopen that indicates that he now has a claim under the convention against torture so so you know when the when the p i a s reviewing this motion to reopen and they're saying ok where is he saying anything about the convention against torture which those words don't even appear in the motion to reopen so the fact that the expert may have said something you know in one hundred eighty pages of materials that they provided t mr markey yeah we are very very clear i think this court has touched on the fact that the government seems to argue what the b i should have done when they issued this decision and they didn't they give us no factual basis to support their decision there's no reasonable articulation for the decision in this case it was merely boilerplate i think what your best case from our circuit would say and the matter should have been reopened thank you thank you mr laurence mr markey we appreciate your arguments and we will submit th