so under mountie what evidence is needed to show change concrete conditions necessary to permit a motion to reopen our position which we believe is in line with his mean with mouthy is that there has to be new evidence showing either increased violence increases attacks against non muslims decrease in government protection or involvement in protecting minority groups upsurge in attacks or government participation in persecution these are the this is the kind of evidence needed to show change conditions and this is exactly what we submitted and it is especially important where the board agreed with the judge that at the time the merits at the time the merits hearing that things were getting better in indonesia now the new evidence specifically would but that position so as you see things have changed in the few minutes the government attorney is going to get out and she's going to say well unfortunately this kind of violence has happened before and we don't disagree with that violence against christians has been going on for years and indonesia however that misses the point as judge reinhardt in your decision you pointed out it's not whether there has been this type of violence before but whether the new violence is in radicalism we've shown the articles at the administrative record on one fourteen one forty and one sixty six we've shown increased violence in fact we showed that by the mid two thousand and twelve there were double the incidents of violence over previous years that was at the administrative record one fifty two shown that the government now fails to protect and that was that one twenty one thirty four and we've also shown that the government is protecting radical militant groups instead of religious minorities and that's a administrative record one thirty seven one forty four and one sixty eight in fact we've even shown that in one month alone  hearing there had been one hundred forty churches closed officials also now instead of just sitting back there forcing the destruction of churches rather than just letting it happen and that was that administrative record one thirty fourth one sixteen and one twenty eight so our case is very in line with or similar to multi there was an all riginal claim which included evidence showing harassment and violence but the immigration judge held the things had gotten better then in denying the motion to reopen the board held that the evidence was simply cumulative of the evidence presented when this case was last before the immigration judge can i my memory correct when that was initially before the i j it wasn't the claim wasn't based on his catholicism or christianity he identified his i thought he was a bootstrap he identified himself as a buddhist but his wife was catholic and in fact one of the things that happened to him was that him and his wife were at church where there was a bomb at the time and the should be here look let me let me step back for just a quick second so it's not just the continuation but qualitatively different so if you look at it this way if you're honest compared the record that was before g the first time and the record submitted here on this motion to reopen you would see that they are qualitatively different but types of violence may be the same but the level and the and tens is different and we also this is the first time around the evidence focus on christians or buddhists both because they're both a minority group within in chinese but so that's part and parcel your honor if you are ethnically chinese ninety nine point nine percent of the effort for the chinese are not unless they're either going to be buddhist or some that coercive family planning has been going on in china for a long time however the applicant in the eleventh circuit was granted after we showed that the rule was in force with new intensity and our view and this case the petition has not necessarily contesting the fact that his march the fifteenth two thousand and thirteen motion to reopen was untimely instead he's suggesting that the change that the time limitations on a motion to reopen should be excused because he demonstrated change country conditions however there are no change country conditions here and the evidence and the record supports that end of record as  noted earlier and the petitioner's argument at the merits hearing and two thousand and six the petitioner was making a totally different claim than what he's making now the claim that he was ma christian and a nishan if he wanted to submit additional evidence he could he did so with his motion to reopen yet he felt to do so so therefore the agency only had the limited evidence that he submitted  experiencing according to the even consider all of the stuff related to christians when he was the first time just talking about his ethnicity and chinese ye he's converted well that wasn't what the at the agency relied on your on a day to see merely the light on the back and he did not demonstrate a change in country conditions as as you have pointed out his claim  the sort of you know snidely saying well at last time it was a buddhist and yes and i understand the course but the position i did some met some evidence even though that was from his sister and acadian that there continue to be charge by means that the local police are preventing christians from practicing their religion and that her church with in fact closed however this is not that this is not merely related to answer that islamic movie that was released that was created in the united states there's no evidence in the record outside of the sisters the letter that indicates that american citizens are targeted are harm must be compared to the general populace of the population in general not compared to others in the disfavored group one's chances of being singled out from the general population and subjected to persecution is often strongly correlated with the frequency with with which others who share the same disfavor characteristics are mistreated and persecuted that was wholly in the holder coating waqar you the holder so there is no requirement that the harm be worse or different from that suffered by other members of the group the question is whether he will be singled out from the general population not others in the disfavored group and he's shown that you just take a look at the pictures on pages four fifty three to four sixty four you will see how his brother was cut alongside his neck his shoulder and his hand at the  that attack was not persecution on the brother or on to the petitioner that's that and ministry of record two fifty one and i would ask the panel to please read that paragraph and then compare it to the administrative record on page fifty five when the brother filed asylum and was granted asylum in may of two thousand and twelve the view i completely ignore that know there's nothing in the record per se that shows that but if you take a look at the record the record is five hundred something pages long so this thing of you know that the record was incomplete here that we didn't have something from two thousand and six to compared to what's happening now that's not entirely accurate the record is fully been made of what was happening in the past and what's happening here in the future christian he's question so his threat level is even higher we've submitted the letter from the sister she's saying that the police are not protecting us we can't go to church were afraid to go to church now as to the united states citizen children so he wouldn't be eligible your client to apply for the rivet of unfortunately my my client would potentially be eligible once his oldest child is twenty one which is eight years from now and which now outside of this appeal the government why they're not following the memo that was given by the department but by the the  record no criminal record by all accounts for lack of a better word they are perfect citizens they've been here what for about sixteen years that their children are paying their taxes they're just afraid to go back to a country