s not my body for several reasons st and foremost in the body the court cited the panel cited stating that the country condition report was a carbon copy virtually of the newer one submitted in this case we have cited in our brief particularly on pages twenty three and twenty four and your honour's i forgot to mention i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal in this case the country conditions there were no reports of beatings of protesters and particularly to the extent that they were in two thousand and fifteen under the regime the regime had initially taken over and nine hundred and ninety eight dollars so it was fairly nascent when respondent initially appl for asylum so there is a big difference in the country conditions and also the fact that in the two thousand and fourteen human rights report your honor it states that police beat protesters i could and especially even though there were some human rights violations already at that time admittedly it was not to that level and the th circuit the this court has recognized that a worsening of country conditions may also be a change circumstance if coupled with personal circumstances human rights watch report as well as the other articles that we submitted with the motion that's not the country uh know that i'm specifically suffer harm and whether the armenian government was spying on individuals who were protesting in the us and so forth this differs from kofi gives decision because it is not conclusory and speculative he saw them specifically taking pictures basically with regard to the prior adverse credibility determination the judge did state that his testimony was vague and ambiguous the record is very limited in questioning that attorney has already been disbarred and this is neither here nor there but basically it was not there were no inconsistency is pointed out other than the fact that there were some events the burning of the house and so forth that were not mentioned in his state counsel you're not relying in this case on what your client testified to in the original hearing the case law of the circuit and the supreme court has recognized the importance of motions to reopen although they're generally frowned upon but the importance is to protect the rights if new circumstances arise that adverse credibility was primarily hinged upon the a couple of incidents that were not mentioned in the written statement i'm not revisiting that verse credibility i'm just stating that it doesn't make it inherently unreliable his sworn declaration at least establishes prime aphasia case to let the immigration judge the site observe his demeanor and decide if he is credible or not i mean that's one of the question going back to your prior argument which you promised to the in the record to where the country conditions report that you're relying upon talks about the and the breaking up of so basically at this point your honor with regard to all the differences again and multi then the vidual had personal changes and in this case he was target his daughter specifically called him crying and the family it's not in the record but the family eventually had to flee as well so there is personal changes and made relevant by the changes in the country the significantly worsening countr find that there were changed country conditions and changed personal conditions and less or rather the be a cannot make that funding unless accepted your clients declaration is that correct that is correct again declaration unless it was inherently not credible do you think that you fairly presented that issue in the brief and that the court should consider it now i think your honor we mentioned the issue in the key to his claim was and is the question but the b i a yes that is correct and the declaration is sworn to and there is the basically the background documents and we did address it in the brief i understand we didn't address it should have been an issue statement and addressed front and center i think it's around page twenty seven in your brief there's a on the side a brief mention so if you're understating that asking whether we have waived the issue by not bringing it up i'm not well if you have a fairly presented the issue is the government prejudiced in responding to that what is your argument that we should consider that issue your honor if the court feels that we did not sufficiently address that issue can i suggest i don't know if the court is amenable to it but we can do supplemental briefing on the issue in light of the arguments we are making today the government interested in it my name is jacqueline shea and i represent the attorney general of united states to prevail on a motion to reopen in the proceedings on the basis of country condition change conditions petition needed to establish three burdens the board acted within its discretion when it petitioners allegations without cooperation but on the credibility determination it is in our case law that if that if as a result of that a particular issue in the prior proceeding as it is found contrary to what petitioners argument is that the i a e a can find that binding but not that it can just generally because the petitioner was found not credible and in an initial proceeding find him again not underline conclusive adverse credibility a termination rendered the evidence of country change conditions not material but isn't that because that issue was specifically raised before the immigration judge and here the petitioners the different issue that's raised in the motion to reopen that there was no credibility determination made on do you have a case that addresses that scenario yet i think that the other case would be the case where the court noted in that case the perverse incentive for granting a motion to reopen based on significant change in personal conditions as we have in this case yes we do have a new allegation raised in this case but it's reasonable under the circumstances for the board to consider that advert prior i've heard credibility determination because his new claim in this case is based solely on his declaration he supported his in support of his motion to reopen he had his his application true correct yes right and b they found that corroborative evidence here was required yes or no and aren't both of those things wrong that corroborative evidence isn't required that they can make this that our court has said it in numerous cases has stated that finding however like in malti and that case there again there was no adverse credibility determination in that case where he only had in that case he had  declaration and the country commission evidence like this case but the court noted specifically in a footnote that he didn't argue anything unbelievable in that case hinting at that if there was something brought up  entirely a argument yes would be much more difficult but again in this case the board did find secondly that they didn't make the prima fascia case and i will also note that his primary argument that the the board for the board actually that there was change conditions to begin with in this case your honor it is his burden to prove that and in his brief it seemed to be some continuing conditions i don't think he met his burden in that respect your honor  he didn't meet his burden and that is well that's going to be back up for a moment i didn't fully understand your answer to judge bennett's question about the declaration if the b i a was required to find that the contents of the declaration were inherently not newly discovered evidence or disfavored and they saw also case law that says that you don't hold a petitioner in a motion to reopen to the higher standard that they would have it the merits hearing because it's simply a motion to reopen and then have a merits hearing and i understand the motion to reopen his disfavored and there are time limits and that is argue no particular exception is a reason to reopen but there's still the face your honor what they had here the entire declaration was his new claim and there was nothing supporting it it's reasonable for the board here to consider the adverse credibility determination that was not contested  this case his his allegations again were very generalized fourteen of the seventeen paragraphs in his declaration simply work out general country conditions and information none of the articles that they were spying on him or keeping track of his actions and his claim here your honour's could be easily corroborated but it was not this court has said it's hard to get declarations from family members possibly out of the country but here he could've got declaration from friends and relatives in the united states a core operate that he was a prominent activists in the community and that didn't happen here again this is a solid adverse credibility change as well the board noted in this case that the i g the underlining findings was not targeted by the army and government in the underlying finding he couldn't even identify as in this case the government that was targeting him but the statute says that for the motion to reopen he can either submit an affidavit or other evidence or material so it doesn't seem as if he was required to submit the corporate evidence that you're arguing would have been easy for him to pr an under these circumstances for the board to not completely erase what happened before but to consider all of the evidence in light of making it suspicion it would be fair for the court to conclude that the government was aware of the issue with or the argument that it was an error for the to either find the affidavit or the declaration inherently not credible or to accept it and that you responded to that in your brief your honor we didn't fully respond to in our brief because it wasn't raised in his opening brief but it was cited that case the case i believe was cited in his brief it was it was cited so the case i think recently could be considered sorry please complete your answer yes john i just think it wasn't completely raised so we weren't specifically were to address it however we did generally address it  discusses two or three instances and states if i may say to your honor that police impeded peaceful demonstrations by those who frequently demonstrated over a variety of social and human rights problems police committed multiple procedural valuations and detaining persons and then it states cases where there were police the tensions and abuses in custody so basically these were not mentioned in the prior state department human rights report i see that i'm out of time unless the panel has more questions and to answer your other question your honor i looked at the government's brief it did not address it i looked at our brief yes it could have been addressed in more detail but we did cite to the case and we did state that it has t