but not more than that thank you good morning we have please the court shows to go once and for petitioner the two issues in this appeal are whether substantial evidence supports the i g is finding that the well founded fear presumption was there but it by changed country conditions and secondly whether the board abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based upon petitioners post here in country conditions articles now we have only the motion for a hearing in front of us part of it we have only the motion for reconsider for re opening before us no your honor i believe that the motion to reopen was submitted to the board during the pendency of respect to that issue your honor it's significant that there was no individualized analysis inquiry of petitioner himself whether he could relocate and where he can relocate and whether it's feasible to do so it's also significant to note that there were only there was only one human rights report that was mooted by the department in that case and  evidentiary basis to rebut that presumption based upon that that country report the i j himself cited to the report but he says he stated in so many words that the government quote generally provides for freedom of internal movement and that the government generally respected those rights and precedent has established that generalized info information rather from the state department report is not reopen the entire the entire country of india based on what is going on what is occurring in the in the country now what i would propose or submit today is that the i j a did not properly factory and three three separate factors that petitioner was implicated in a false drug case by the police and whether that implication of a false drug case would follow petitioner wherever he located within the country the i j a failed to take into account the parents affidavits attesting that the police continue to look for petitioner after he left india and that petition was targeted by an influential hindu with his connections to the police and to two political parties the i j a also failed to factor in that the petitioner's ability to relocate may have been severely compromised by his uprooting by the by mr ron of the hindu persecutor the clay persecutor uprooting petitioner from his land illegally and unjustifiably a farmer by occupation and i would submit that in india sikh farmers in relation to the land is a kin of if you will the mother child relationship the land provides for the sick farmers and we have a petitioner here whose family was barely making ends meet before they were able to obtain this land from misrata let me ask you this the family still resides locally where all of this incident occurred i think correct yes his wife children their parents yes so he wants to separate himself from his family and come to the united states and not return to his home they are correct not by choice your honor he fe t compelled to leave the fleet a versa he has a brother living fifteen kilometers away yes and the brother is safely living i know there are some incidences but basically his family resides in the locale at the time of the motion to reopen that's what the evidence truly i see now you know i did some snooping around to find that little bit about punjab and you know i found out that is two hundred miles away from where his home town filing of the motion to reopen which we would submit establishes prime a fussy evidence of a changing climate in india that is nationwide what one blogger we like a pond right part of the one blog that night that the two thousand and fifteen blog by the professor from trinity is that what you're relying on when i believe that there are other articles that that establish that there is a climate of persecution and oppression against minorities minorities are at risk in india be they sikhs muslims or christians so you tell me that every sikh should be able to come to the united states because of the fact that it's not safe to be in punjab which is really a sikh community not at all your honor i believe however in this particular circumstance where we have a sikh farmer who is up rooted from his land by his claim persecutor and his ability to relocate either within his community or outside the community was severely compromised basically a land dispute that had its origins between his sikh not only by religion but by ethnicity and he was persecuted by this hindu gentleman and he was implicated in a false drug case by the police supposedly in connection with mr rodham the claim persecut it's difficult to imagine or in vision petitioner being able to go back to his home country try to restart his life as a farmer when it was difficult to begin with they blocks implication that what we're comparing it to coming here you know its place unlikely to be able to farm here either and so the question is why is it comparatively more reasonable for him  in the record your honor to show that he's he can engage in other occupations other than as farmers so i would submit that every man does reasonable in this case to further develop the record to conduct a true individualized analysis as to whether or not this gentleman can safely relocate and whether it's feasible to do so again he's implicated in a false drug case by the police whether that factors into whether he could relocate i would submit it does and the fact that he is a subsistence farmer and for the petitioner to further develop the record as to what is actually going on in the city and not only in the punjab but in the state of in the nation of india in the country of india rather there's an increasing extremist hindu movement good morning your honour's may it please the court i'm carmel morgan on behalf of the respondent the acting u s attorney general substantial evidence in this case supports the denial of protection and relief and the board did not abuse it boded there are a number of things that the immigration judge considered the state department report played a major role in addition the petitioners own testimony about the safety of his family members nearby also was a significant factor well the family he was farming on the land not the family members that were nearby right he the  r in this case is involved in the land dispute that resulted in his persecution and the family members his father his wife and child remain there like understand it at or near that location two brothers live the fifteen kilometers away and the wife's family also lives maybe twenty kilometers away in a neighboring so we don't know that the brothers were involved the brothers apparently were not involved preston's were asked of the petitioner they had apparently no connection with this man who instigated the land dispute so but his father was involved yes the father and the son together apparently paid for the land and the father  and the father is still there so we have this blog post that goes back to two thousand and fifteen by this american born sikh who teaches religion at trinity university and that was not considered and  think that it ought to be considered was an irrelevancy with regard to the motion to reopen one of the things that the petitioner needs to do is to show that the evidence is a material change  and you also have to show that it's new evidence that couldn't have been presented below while the blog post occurred later it's clear from the record as it exists that there have been long ongoing tensions of a religious matter within india i don't think this particular blog post is likely to change the outcome of the case so it wasn't an abuse of the of the board's discretion to deny the motion to be open there's anything resulting in a well founded fear of persecution for most sikhs living in the punjab there apparently no extrajudicial killings that were reported and so yes right i'm not sure that's the only thing that particular blog post wasn't before the immigration judge that was submitted subsequently as a motion to reopen but the question is should that be considered or not we should just disregard well it was considered by the board we presume that the board considers all the evidence before it they just didn't find that it met the very heavy burden to reopen it was the look they didn't address that specifically did they know they didn't address that specifically i think it's connected to the fact that the immigration judge already completed the proceedings right right so there's a strong interest in finality and so i think that's why the burden that's not  else is there anything else what it what about the i mean there were some reliance on the ability to relocate to where his brother is or brother i thought it was one brother made i think it's two yes but that was right nearby is in there somebody was really after him that was going to be much yes it's there's no evidence in the record other than the petitioners on hearsay testimony that was credit i mean i mean you have to take this case as you testimony was credited with regard to his testimony about the police being able to reach him wherever he would go with in india the immigration not talking or if i would call we're talking fifteen kilometers away where us where his brothers were living  and i would been be no mystery somebody n s small area i gather that's where his brothers were living so i don't know why that's a useful place to go he doesn't necessarily have to go there the immigration judge also pointed out he could  join his wife's family in another state although that was nearby to or that was not in another state also same state i thought it was either some way but it may be also that the immigration judge pointed out that he could away i think it was reasonable for the judge to make the in for instance that the individual who persecuted the petitioner i not influential on a nationwide level such that the police would follow him wherever he would go the petitioner himself admitted it was a local matter during his credible fear interview and in his father's affidavit the father mentions that this individual spoke to party officials only on the state level i did want to say too with regard to an individualized analysis the government did do an individualized analysis because the government can see i mean the immigration judge considered petitioners family members with regard to his potential for safety and the immigration judge considered his age his skills and other factors that w in favor of reasonable relocation if you have no further questions then the government asks that you deny the petition for you thank you very much thank you no questions here and i think just briefly finally your honor the record establishes that petitioner has no funk family in the punjab the i j at the time of his decision and he has a family here i mean that's that's that's that's the tension here it's a it's  peculiar standard because in terms of reasonableness the fact that he may have a hard time in india you know as seems to me you have to factor in the fact that he's not having easy time here  applied but it seems logical to me that in terms of reasonableness we have to look at whether he his difficulties are going to be extreme to the degree that it makes sense to have him here well the fact that articles i don't see more than what i see that blog i don't see anything else that supports the notion that he cannot say he lived in punjab of that one blog and i imagine he's closer to his family from job that he would be from the united states yes i would submit your honor that the other articles in the mortuary open do address that there's a climate of oppression that was developing at that time but it has only worsened since that time so with the