to discuss work ongoing here there is the nine hundred ninety nine document that the governor that the immigration judge relied on does not in any way contradict what mr x to testify to credi specially insulted her who detained her from without charges further the judge erred in shifting the burden on to the petitioner to show that she no longer that she still has an ongoing well founded fear future circumstances of this case it was not a due process violation for the immigration judge to take administrative notice in more recent state department country condition report that had been introduced at the hearing and where petitioner had the opportunity in her or for the board to let her introduce more evidence so i think the ordinary consistently applied rules of the her opportunity to revive that document would have been and remain that hearing before the i g i think that's correct i think that's what what of under under the circumstances and under the entire circumstances and i think in this case we believe that the fact that there is a direct appeal to the board of vailable after the immigration judge's decision was issued is the nicaraguan case that was sort of from the ninth circuit i think there are there are two important differences one is that in both of those cases it was the the board that took administrative notice not the immigration judge this court has found that both the fact that whether or not it was argued on the brief before the board or that there was a possibility of a motion to reopen those two years after the close of evidence but before the i j a reaches a conclusion the i j a received a letter that says you know this person is really not up in across their member of the communist party before the fall of the soviet union and there was no sexual assault as a matter of fact she case the change country conditions in romania were an issue and evidence was presented on that issue and petitioner had the opportunity and the image gratian judge considered whether or not remain he had changed in eighty nine there was evidence there was a further change of by the immigration is correct that's that's i think a very important factor in this case so so the issues were all before the immigration judge the state department's one thousand nine hundred seven report on country conditions was introduced into evidence and   of you know looking at whether or not she had a full and fair opportunity on the whole to raise her issues concerning changed circumstances and also while she had the opportunity before the board to read that raised you know whether or not there were differences between ninety seven and ninety you had left romania one thousand nine hundred four the immigration judge threw out her decision talked about finding past persecution on the basis of religion based on the yeah the conduct that happened during the communist regime so she didn't she didn't there's no difference or no relevant difference between the ninety nine report which was not in the record in the ninety seven report which was i think your honor that further points to guy just there said based on the record and that includes question to you was is there anything relevant difference between the ninety nine report which was not in the record in the ninety seven report which she realized from the record your honor i do believe there is some change in language from one thousand nine hundred seventy nine to build churches and to have meetings there and i think that number changed there were some other minor changes about the different types of specific religions that were cited as not suffering