saline is what evidence is needed to show change conditions to permit a motion to reopen well in two thousand and sixteen the saleman court decided that the exact same type of evidence was presented her her individual enough insight you know it was recognize that even if the rats or instances of harm that alone or in the cumulative would not be considered past persecution they can never the less be used to draw the inference for a well founded future fear of persecution to show it was a sliding scale if you will to show that a person school teacher that while living in indonesia she was being extorted by an indonesian police officer for four years who would be coming to her store taking protection money from her when she stop paying that police officer she she was accosted in her store with a man wielding a knife she said she was cut on one occasion on another occasion she said that she was scratched the judge in his or afraid to practice our religion back home in indonesia so that is her personalized risk and the things that have happened to her in the past were both on account of protected grounds race and religion now you are on of the evidence here we believe is even more compelling than what was presented in subtly namely because of the rise in isis in indonesia and the use of the blasphemy laws by the indonesian government our documentary evidence shows that since the petitioners last hearing before the immigration judge there have been increased violence intensify that acts against christians and other religious minorities the creasing government protection upsurge in attacks and government participation in persecution in fact let me let me go  the court and the fall of the motion to reopen and may of twenty eight seen so the timeline of all three of these cases for the sister circuits if you will match exactly to m behalf of the attorney general the court here should deny the petition for review because the agency clearly acted within its discretion in denying petitioners rd motion to reopen presented thirteen years after the boars final order of removal petitioners have not demonstrated that they should be excused from the time and number of bars governing motions to reopen because they failed to present evidence that conditions for ethnic chinese christians have changed make that finding but petitioners attempt to analogize slim to this case is unpersuasive slim is distinguishable and there are several different factual aspects of that case that that make it disting slowly considered they actually rain man did to consider a claim where the petitioner had converted from christianity to buddhism since the original proceeding which is not the case here petitioners have always claim to be ethnic chinese christians important slimmest different because presented evidence of individual lies risks that simply wacking from this motion to reopen your honor for example i believe it was that's simply lacking from the from the supporting evidence of the motion and other subsequent cases looking at similar issues as at the time period so we're comparing that time period from their original removal hearing in two thousand and three with their motion to reopen filed in two thousand and thirteen and while there is evidence in the record here for example of intolerance toward christians by muslims also petitioners have submitted evidence i would direct  ten of the record stating that terrorist groups have long lived in indonesia especially many extreme extremist groups that came to the forefront in the late ninety's and early two thousand and so right before the time of petitioners original removal hearing and these groups their evidence states laid the basis for the jihadist cells and extreme extremist groups that they reference so that also i think it's important to note that much  of the the evidence submitted with the new motion to reopen applies to all minority of religious groups not just christians in indonesia your honor turning back to the individual risk aspect of this case the board again acted within its discretion and and looking at this and even as members of the disfavored group in indonesia which which the board conceded and that's conducted that analysis the petitioners did not demonstrate that sufficient individualized risk that they would face if returned to indonesia for example statements in linda wattis declaration they speak about hearing about protests the governor of jakarta his conviction and imprisonment but as the board noted there's been there was no indication that in some your honor edition ours have simply failed to demonstrate the prima facia case for relief even considering their membership in the disfavored group of chinese christians because they just did not provide that objective level of evidence of an individual risk of future persecution and i would also like to reference the opposing council's claims i'm sorry sites two cases from the rd circuit and also the  circuit submitted in the twenty eight j letter that they filed i believe it was two days ago the court does not need to look to these out of circuit cases because the court's current president can squarely answer the question in this case specifically we can look to the court's decision in for example poor vi sessions where edition ors showed that their family had had experience threats and physical attacks that seems to be the crux of the issue in these cases petitioners families here did not detail in their letters that they experience any individual attacks or other threats rather this case seems to be more like another recent case that this court decided in roger beholder where the families did not show generally worsening i'm sorry the evidence showed generally worsening persecution of christians in indonesia but there was no evidence that the family had been targeted directly your hono and some the board reasonably found that petitioners fell short of current their burden to demonstrate change country conditions in indonesia and they've likewise failed to present evidence demonstrating well your honor the standard of review here would be abuse of discretion and so on where the court is looking at the evidence as the board reviewed it it's comparing the weight of it's comparing the evidence well your honor a material change would need to be showing evidence that's qualitatively different from the evidence which was presented at the original removal hearing and that  abuse its discretion in finding is that the evidence petitioners presented in there and their original hearing and then later and multiple motions to reopen to the board which were subsequently denied on a petition for review to this court that the evidence was not qualitatively different and and in failing to make that qualitatively different showing your honour's they've they've failed to show that changed materially changed circumstances in indonesia and likewise failed to demonstrate the prima facia case succession not through both and it incensed the fundamentalists back home and the government worked to appease them and hope was convicted  blasphemy and he actually served the two years sentence soley for saying that the koran does not prohibit muslims for voting for a christian for christian person no t a hoax case shows the upsurge of radicalism against christians also i want to point to the unpublished eleven circuit decision where they state contrary to the fight the evidence chris the wadi submitted in support of our motion demonstrated that incidence of religious intolerance related violence against religious minorities including