question so you know even if we were to agree with you that the situation in sri lanka towards returning a solemn seekers has changed between now and we're talking two thousand and eight in two thousand and sixteen government targeted are and we rejected his argument that he was vulnerable because of his wife family ties to and so i'm wondering what is new here so even if we rejected his his claims earlier so why should we think that his asylum application would in fact be likely to be rather than a f client bowron now is the group of persons returning after having been denied asylum in the united yes i am not arguing that  court also denied relief on the alternative basis to be a provided namely that in his motion to reopen but it's now focused on current conditions and failed to point to documents or declarations showing what conditions were like for denied asylum seekers in two thousand and eight million eighty two thousand and sixteen my understanding is that in around two thousand and nine the multi decade civil war that was going on in sri lanka finally ended and that suggests to me that that creates possibly some presumption of change country conditions because that country went from a state of war to a different more stable situation albeit with you know likely continuing ethnic tensions and possibly worse but so i'm having some difficulty accepting the government's argument that you know that there was persecution of asylum seekers in two thousand and seven and there's persecution now and so we should have mr perera  subjected to those bad conditions and that persecution because it's maybe not materially were  a few responses vary on i think their argument of things might have changed in two thousand and nine perhaps they did in some other respects but i don't think the record bears out that they change materially on this particular question of returned asylum seekers  historical investigation it was an excess amount of the record at the time maybe you could address my other question which is whether mr about the merits of of the that such that if it if we were to disagree with you about the change country conditions we should consider it and you might get a different result all right on the nd what happened in your honor thank you i think i giuliana yes  so the petitioner did change his theory between us st the i proceed in this motion to reopen has protected basis changed from the fact that he was a creditor to the fact that he was a denied asylum seeker this court i couldn't find it as there's i'm saying th change a theory completely like that the th circuit i believe has said that a petitioner can do that but i do think that he's going to have a lot of problems trying to persuade the b s a and maybe this court if on his new claim because as you pointed out your honor and as the petitioners counsel pointed out the fact that he's not having any issues now in sri lanka indicates that he does not like where he doesn't have a chance of facing persecution upon return and also the fact he was found not credible in this prior proceeding it's not necessarily an absolute bar to relief on a reopening but it's a very strong thumb on the scale isn't the only way he could get around it would be to show a pattern or per pattern or practice of persecution which is an extremely high bar bar your honor and if i could to try to answer your st question again your honor just one of our points i think that the i option of argument below is the the burden was always on the petitioner to introduce evidence of what conditions were like in two thousand and eight fo that is that is that that standard though tied to an assumption that the ground for the petition would have been the same both in the initial their determination and the current motion to after the relevant time period the relevant kick off period are are are good evidence of what the conditions were a little bit before in other words i mean supposing to make the argument more extreme if if we had evidence of what the conditions were one month after his earlier hearing that would be good evidence even though there were no evidence of what was a month earlier what it was a month later absence of showing to the contrary is pretty good evidence of what of what the conditions were a month earlier and so judge carney you're saying well if we have we have evidence of what they were in two thousand and ten which is ten years ago as opposed to twelve years ago isn't two thousand and ten evidence decent evidence of what they were in two thousand and eight i think i don't know you are a party meant to but that seems to me a possible secret we're still facing problems as of that time period so i think to the extent we try to divine what the situation was in two thousand and nine or two thousand and ten or two thousand and eight as the actual relevant time then the evidence supports th all that