sorry page ten on line eleven thirty one line three humanitarian on humanitarian grounds that he be granted political asylum and so i think there are really two issues that i would like to present to the court today and the first one has to do with change country conditions and the of the second one would be it is based on the past persecution he suffered at the hands of the salvadorian army the department of homeland security introduced the two thousand and three department of state country report for el salvador as the sole evidence in an attempt to show that changed country conditions in el salvador and as the petitioners brief has discussed that report even documents that the salvadorian government the souring government sanctioned or controlled entities are continuing to commit human rights violations in the form of killings and physical abuse some of which are reported as politically motivated and this court has repeatedly held and specifically in the cases of rios versus ashcroft to eighty seven thirty eight ninety five garcia martinez versus ashcroft three seventy one f third ten sixty six and lopez versus ashcroft in three sixty how change country conditions will affect the specific aliens situation the department of homeland security failed to introduce such evidence and therefore on this record department of homeland security has failed to rebut the presumption that mr melendez has a well founded fear of future persecution and that his life and freedom would be threatened if he were removed el salvador and the second argument i'd like to address is the judge's abus and eight code of federal regulations to eight point thirteen b one three little lie well specifically west of things that discretion in european i was just going to get to that point  i've got three more cases as authority but your honor i can't say that those cases that we say specifically answer your question however there are many cases including  but still it it sounds like the judge had asked passed to consider them and i would think that in his decision he would have to at least mention that that's not what the courts are party well i think that the immigration judge really considered one factors in my brief but i'd like to point out two particularly significant favorable factors that i gave failed to consider well in his written decision doesn't appear to to even mention the eight u s code section twelve fifty four any and has continuously been eligible for that status as a national goal salvatore entitle temporary protected status by the designation the attorney general  and judge conduct be individualized analysis yes you did your honor and how do you do so he applied the change country circumstances that were found in the state department reports to the and i think that you have to read the immigration court decision as an integrated whole and when you except at the evidence of the mother's letter that night was presumably part of or not in presumably it must be considered to be part of the immigration state department look based on the state department as it applied to the position of specific facts again what are those specific facts well it's hard to say in the abstract because the have the petition  he did mention all the equities that were in favor of the petitioner they all cited in the court's decision i disagree with counsel earlier when he stated that there needed to be an assignment of specific weight to each of the issued in march sixth of this year it's not for the record we don't know how the immigration court with applied that obviously but it does not indicate any deterioration of conditions in el in the transcript of the of the immigration court but i was not concern is whether or not that specific argument was made so as to give the government opportunity to respond i can't i don't i do not recall