basically the board wants to change it and left this court to decide credibility now it's interesting that the judge only cited basically for reasons for which are for which  if the bath harty truly wanted to harm my client then they would have never allowed him to become a doctor but as my client credibly testified there's a shortage of doctors he's intelligent enough in order to become a doctor and he was allowed to pursue that that the i j a made no specific credibility finding it's interesting because he but he listed three reasons why he had had suspicions regarding  play different from the yes i mean frankly i saw that he was troubled yes i'd buy a couple of things but he did and i thought he refused to make a credibility determination well if he was person and intelligent judge but i have to agree that he didn't finish the job in this case really didn't finish the job it's that he failed to make acquittal finding because questions about britain unlike the previous case where the administrative judge explicitly said i don't find this witness testimony credible we don't know whether he was fine he would make in this case  to do it we assume it in their record is clear now we're only going to change conditions correct and whether the petitioner suffered past persecution which we believe that he did thereby shifting the burden to the gallery frankly if you made no further credit no finding the record just pretty clear he did serve christ for he did find past persecution we presume it and go forth and i agree you're honest and i think very point that my good friend here brings up it seems to me that i have the hanna case which would suggest that i could assume persecution but then i ought to send it back to make sure that that's what i need to do and i got the lopez case which i guess i think gives better credence before we need to do if the i g is going to punt then and the f b i a in this case in my book did nothing to help in this situation from then it seems to me that i say the record presumes that then the government's got a job to do they've got to come forth with individual eyes to analysis as to why this is not appropriate country qualifications for this particular individual that's correct and i think let's put this out in the open there's the when the this court issues an order obviously all the parties want to know what those new conditions are and they should be made a part of the record but it's beyond your authority to directly ordered you to do that but i have seen i think it was suggested in the honey case but also another unpublished decision excellent verbiage which says listen board it would be wise although we can't order it for you to examine these different country conditions and i think that is the appropriate order of the score that he did suffer past persecution but if the case needs to be it's not in this respect but it i suppose so we can do fool's errands but i suppose if we send it back to the board they will say and current conditions are not so great for christian government's burden on change conditions there must prove that it's safe for the petitioners return not that the same actors who persecuted the petition of the first time are still there but that in general it is safe to return well is that our standard i mean when i was preparing cases appreciate because do not have a long ways away from where you do whenever i have to prepare these cases read if i want to have a tort case for assault there were elements that had to be proven what elements of the government got from proved to meet their burden on the country condition change in your mind on with her fear and i think it's interesting that if an afghan native has to fear for a turn to a democratic european country then clearly held in christian from iraq should have the same fear  impossible for all i mean i don't know how the government can prove that this one person didn't have a reasonable fear of prosecution because it's a question well if the country reports offered said christians live peacefully that democratic country in iraq then obviously they would meet their burden but the reports don't show that and we merely need to show that one in ten announce our policy of equal freedom of religion for everyone in this country and anyone who gets anything that will be viewed as persecuted christians is going to be in trouble with that big mouth no and sat that but that's not enough and my question to you is well if that's not enough what more of the government have they would have to show that the current country reports they would have to redact a third of the reports which say that terrorists are killing muslims i'm sorry killing christians in iraq that would have to be absent from the room from from the current country reports from the department of state but that is they have to prove  cases they failed to apply the relevant facts of the profile to the specific threat now if they have to analyze the fact of each petition as applied to the changed conditions and the generalized information it's not enough and as i read here there was nothing more than a generalized information given to stripped from power and was no longer allowed to back party members were no longer allowed to hold positions of power so the fact that the back party members have gone over minutes the source of his fear at least according to the fourth quarter we believe that that is enough every case now hussein is out as is the best money however your honor the hon a case which this court issued last year shows that the court must also take into consideration or the for agency generally mistaken duty to account other courses of possible harm that could come to christians the problem here is that we can't really apply how to because the record in this case is from two thousand and three so the only country report information we have is what harm happened to  catholic held in two thousand and three and there's nothing in the record about that the only source of harm in the record is based on the harm caused by the fact this party we have no i did do what sort of a record could be developed in two  i realize that you tried to put a basis to where we were going on here and then argue about that but it doesn't seem to me that the only reason one could find him persecuted on account of would simply be because of being a ba not being a bath party seem i mean we do have religion as one of those as well because he talks in these stuff about being yelled at and beaten especially in april of seventy eight called early christian and faithful to his country there are times when he's also being beat up because he's working for the kurds so he has two different things that he's really going for one is that he's brought part of the kurdish democratic party that he working for them that he's doing what he needs to do and the second is that he's a christian and therefore he's unfaithful to his country for me and christian which are two different things in my mind one being totally political information which was shown to the i j a by the government addresses all of those situations for an individual ised analysis of his particular situation as we relate to all the things that he talked about and i can understand one can immediately jump to that if one's going to say the only reason he is he is persecuted is because he's in the bath party but i don't see that at all  alleging here so again i'm back to this idea that government has a burden as to an invalid individual iced analysis and if the general conditions of the government prevents to the i j don't ever get applied to him individually in his particular situation for instance one might be able to go to one place in one country and have no trouble but one might go to another place in the same country and have quite a bit of trouble and therefore here we are individualized seeing the profile and as to the type of circuit as persecution that was done that i don't think the government  say counsel for the government just told me unless i have a good credibility to terminate unless i have an adverse or i have a determination that there was past persecution established a reasonable possibility would suffer harm did get to go to medical school after all his evidence of changed traditions was not as good as the government evidence make no findings as to credibility now first of all i think he's clear off base when he says his evidence of change conditions is not as good as the government evidence he doesn't have any burden on change conditions the government does so the suggest that the alien varies the burden of proof on that is totally out to lunch in my book so then i go or all of this stuff and i still have a tough time saying that i'm certainly theists record there is no way for me to talk about what the i j needs to do on the stand on country conditions in order to get there and therefore out  send it back and let him think about if you can get me past that hurdle i can get there because i don't even see getting to a humanitarian asylum because he couldn't get through it gave the wrong burden of proof for country conditions page twenty four and twenty five of the record twenty six and twenty seven of his brief there's a distinct difference between the two in his brief to this court there is one paragraph where he discusses changed circumstances there is no similar paragraph in his brief to the board that evidences the fact that the country