lay in order to prevail on that motion had to satisfy for the quantum means the first two i don't think are at issue here the first requirements are that the evidence had to be new and previously unavailable the second is that the new country conditions evidence had to show a qualitatively different situation in fiji it's time to stand of the b i thought that the country report did not show a materially more  the be denied on the third and fourth requirements that mr to africa had to make that's materiality of the change to his particular case which this court has described as needing to be individually relevant to the showing and that's new it was he says you can tell by googling my name that i petition for asylum and i'm going to be in a whole lot more trouble back in fiji because they're tougher on people who petition for asylum because it makes the country look bad that was based on what the new zealand professor said but they're not getting off that supports it so i don't understand why the b i has to accept it well does have to very member court well this court has treated country condition reports other expert reports the same as personal affidavits from a movement and self did so with respect to the standard of treating the factual assertions report doesn't show a material change in circumstance even a state department report does not show that he makes that is prima facia case and i think accepting as true the factual assertions in the state of her report which are not arrest and attention that's that's a two thousand and four i recall they also say that they have political prisoners they detain people who criticize the regime and the conditions are poor when they do detain them that's the two thousand and eleven report that's the difference i'm talking about the two thousand and eleven report says that the military routinely acts with impunity and detaining those deemed to be critics or opponents of the go ever meant that once people are detained they're beaten in detention to get forced confessions to this broad crimes to create that label's the crime of sedition any criticism of the government that's the picture painted in the two thousand and eleven report none of those it's says it's conclusion about the about the department state report not showing material change and then says moreover he hasn't presented any other evidence or has present evidence that shows an individualized risk or a pattern of or practice or prosecution seemingly saying moving on to the rest of his evidence he hasn't shown anything else that shows materiality or has a case but that's just then goes on to say the board does that both in the previous paragraph of decision and on that next paragraph saying that his only evidence is a general impression of general strife in fiji and that's just a terrible mischaracterization of his evidence people who are perceived as critics or opponents of the government the evidence undisputed and to be taken as true here is mr too i think like thousand to those groups because i don't really see why he falls into the groups that the experts describe as a fairing so badly when they go back to what got me here i was i was looking for it and it got me that in four point thirty two  the people who sought asylum and then went back or refused to go back were very high level people like this like former ministers and one former minister committed suicide in australia when he was told they'd have to be sent back to fiji and deposed prime minister of fiji and said that there would be they had received explosives training when he was in the fiji army back before he first came the united states he's since his last year and has been involved in the pro democracy group that has been very critical of the regime that's understated statements in the in the submissions again to be taken as true and the extra report explains that partly because of another more prominent military figure who'd gone abroad been very critical of the regime partly because of other sort of coup or insurrection attempts that had been led by former military officers and soldiers with this kind of sabotage demolition explosives training were prime target googled the other day it seems like the same the same prime minister is still in power and what i saw was that there are references to still seeking to crush perceived or suspected insurrections including  morning may please the court my name is sarah burton i represent the united states attorney general scott should deny the petition for review because the board did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen  a sentence or two or paragraph in the b i a report addressing arguments made by the professor from the and it's a university of auckland new zealand be done and what are we supposed to do about it was a b i suppose the board the board does address and mention to retrieve of the professor from new zealand's report doesn't specifically address the board looked at it and i say so let's assume that they did look at it what's the law on what they have to do about it your you are opposing counsel says they have to agree with it and i think i think that's not right i think they can certainly say well while this expert says this the country report says that and we think the country report is more likely to have a right but they didn't say that either affidavits but other evidence as well unless there's some specific sure that's why i think you have to accept it is true if the country report disagrees right in the they would have to it over the line why they w accepting it as jew and here now we're getting through to my question ok here they don't i think they accept it as true that that in dr are true for us opinion various groups face describes is actually not new previously unavailable part of this this fellow as he says that they're scared of former military coming back because there was a military coup and there were these these guys w actually have the skills to cause trouble force that's right he actually says that former military have been at high risk since one thousand nine hundred eighty seven there was a coup in one thousand nine hundred seven and then he says that after the mutiny attempt on the military commodores life in two thousand that resulted in some paranoia and even higher risk to form a military but that's all five years before the original hearing in this case so that's not new previously unavailable in evidence and that actually goes to the board's statement and their decision that the evidence doesn't show a material change in similarly situated former military because before his original hearing at that around two thousand and five and in his evidence back when he was in fiji there was a risk a high risk according to dr richards and now there still is there's not a material change for isn't there what about the fact that after his in the geisha in proceedings in two thousand and five there was this two thousand and six crew that saw this change in leadership and that which made things worse and that's what's in this report that i lately is in particular wrists because they're targeting those with engineering background milage military engineering unit technical knowledge which can be used for sabotage and he was trained in exposes and those who have been involved in the pro democracy movement overseas because of their campaign for international anti theists the sanctions and he's been doing that yes your honor and so there is a change in country conditions as documented here with the two thousand and six crew and the two thousand the this material does not reflect the existence of meaningful differences in the treatment of similarly situated political opponents or former military since the last hearing i would also say with regard to what you pointed out this change in country conditions the closest he gets to individualize threat which is something he has to show is that paragraph in dr retrievals report but that's still not individualized and as we pointed out in our brief  even taking that is true the department of state reports from two thousand and four and two thousand and eleven both say both before his hearing and the two thousand and eleven one with his motion reopen that there were no reports of political prisoners no reports of politically motivated disappearances no long term political detainees so even taking it as true that dr retrieve a he says here he personally communicated with a number of former fiji soldiers who now live in new zealand so he heard from people that live in new zealand that there's this risk but that when compared to taken as true that he heard that but then also looking at the department of state reports which are highly reliable which don't say that there's been a history or a pattern or practice of persecuting former military as they return it simply wasn't enough to show an individualized risk to him that's materially changed and that is active it is here in the united states yes he has a factor and he's been involved in pro democracy groups here in the us and he submitted evidence of that but again the two thousand and eleven department of state report says that there are no reports of political prisoners or political long term detainees so one it's not clear that the feagin government knows about his activities his evidence says that he was a member and he did some fund raising but he's not been that we know of at any sort of high level publicized activities  least enough to meet that standard well worthwhile to develop the issues further is one way that it's been articulated but it's it's often worthwhile i think that it's also been articulated as a high standard to show this change in country conditions that the statute says that materially impacts his eligibility for asylum and it's because he's essentially asking for a new trial on something that's already been decided and his previous hearing came all the way up to this court his original asylum claim so he has to show that this change actually materially impacts his persecution analysis and show as you pointed out your honor is a reasonable likelihood of getting to that ten percent possibility before the i j a that concert's a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion imputed i think it's important to note again that the board did not say that the evidence wasn't previously unavailable it did not say that it was crediting the departments that report over the expert report