you can be stoned to death for it but nosed instances where pows there's no other discussion of violence there's no discussion of restriction of any three association rights there's no special arrest or other convictions or russians or anything like that if you look at the two thousand and fifteen country mobs that the police refuse to arrest when they go stoning people or stripping them taking them out of their houses and pretty and make it through the streets exaggerating so you have increased violence under existing laws and then you have the passage of new  act necessarily involved and so i think that's the primary change you have both increase violence against people in a way that is just simply not in the record at the time mr yuri's will proceeding and then you also ha to reopen mr gone over could show guidance he had to reports one from a nonprofit organization the other from the state department where he was able to show increased violence against people anythi including making up false crimes against them but in them in prison and then in nothing violence against them and the court said that one that simple going from known horsemen to enforcement was enough to getting arrested for simply attending a gay wedding in addition to showing people being pulled from her house and prayed in the streets naked by their neighbors with impunity in addition to showing he will then attended an l g b t friendly church is not even clear any of these people are b but they support the rights being stoned by a mob and the police doing nothing about it in addition to showing that he showed a fundamental change in the law such that simply supporting r may please the court and lucy marshall on behalf of the attorney general to prevail here today mr jerry carries a heavy burden he must show that the board abused its discretion that the same sex marriage prohibition act is not a material change for bisexuals of nigeria a country that has lost outlawed and punished with sexuality this is a claim that the board rejected previously and that this court upheld nearly identical record as before he cannot show that the board decision was irrational because the same sex marriage prohibited act is not materially different so as to constitute a change of conditions i'd like to turn st to petitioners arguments that there was an increase in forced me of the preexisting laws based on the passage of the same sex marriage prohibits act aside from that this is not an argument that was ever raised to the board of mr yury bases his claim on an argument that this law can you talk to him a little about the differences between the two laws because they're not the same as a relay some type of conduct that are criminalized it does seem to me that there's an expansion of the s s n p a are the types of conduct that jerry points to appear to be instances where nigeria forced its previously existing law criminalizing homosexuality their genomes from i'm sorry mr so you're saying that not withstanding the fact that there are many differences a situation in which the petitioner claimed a fear over time china based on the sterilization that china imposed and i think in accordance with its one child family planning laws and in that case she showed evidence that there was sterilization included in the policy however the court found that it was not a change because that was part of the policy in the beginning here we have essentially no change because we have a law that was banning homosexuality which has continued to be enforced but which has parts that are no longer being for a few things that have never been enforced and it's matter of i d s let me ask you this council did you raise a matter of s a in that case indicated that any new report or new law is not evidence of change conditions without convincing evidence that the prior version of the law was different or was differently  the rights to be materially different and that's under the reasoning of s y d itself so why why is that not correct because the out of his out of court what the jury cl were something like that would be helpful to prove a change of contract or to attempt to prove a change of country conditions mr dering provided several articles from online sources and his regarding current conditions or conditions that were current in two thousand and fourteen when he submitted that here l but he provided nothing relating to earlier enforcement in fact the only information he provided about earl in two thousand and eight so he is asking the board and this court to conclude that there was a change in conditions without ever truly describing what those conditions were and i don't think that the board was a rational in determining that he did not show that when the evident the earliest evidence that he shows was that there was discrimination acts against homosexuals and where the country conditions reports that he and that he provided indicate that the laws  on the books contain no mention that they were not enforced and when the law when the excuse me the country conditions information doesn't include reports on its enforcement they did not indicate in any way that this was a two phenomena substantially different than what was in the two thousand and five in court and what criminal conduct what constitute a criminal conduct conduct at the time of his removal proceedings is that enough to demonstrate  change conditions or this there have to be a showing of increase in violence and if your answer is that there has to be some demonstration in the record an increase in violence and what case supports that i don't think the mr yury have to show necessarily increased violence but i think he needed to show that a larger difference and a material way and not include some level of themselves were different and if there was an expansion of the types of conduct that was criminalized i think that if he could show an expansion of the criminal division at with the evidence that it wasn't for man conduct that has always been criminalized notwithstanding to change of law it is very difficult for him to make that showing because of the change here isn't the core of his fear which is living  criminalize per the prior report now al there is a law on the books that basically criminalize all public shows affection civil unions any demonstration of support t l t causes why isn't that a material expansion of criminal conduct that puts him at increased risk all right thank you a question mr can you over time i i was i have no problem would you like me to conclude of even at that place because certainly ultimately mr yuri was charged with showing a change in country conditions and here he is i believe that only the same claims that this that the board and this court both previously rejected on the identical record he wrote that as a result of this new law there has been widespread increase in the pattern and practice of systematic persecution of the community perpetrated by both private and public officials such as police officers in judiciary as mr yuri's argument has always been  this new law has served as a catalyst both the forced passage in after its actual passage for increased persecution of the community and i furia and as for the government's argument that mr dering must somehow prove in this is on page seven hundred and fifty four for sixty seven federal and next court wrote although there is a potential for imprisonment as a result of homosexuality there is no evidence in the record of any violence directed toward over a one hundred people have been arrested for simply being suspected as being homosexual and people have been beaten as a result where this when they get arrested by the police and even th