have a reasonable fear of future persecution all of that certainly is indisputable but this case is about evidence as it is this case really about evidence and and what i understand to be your basic contention that a fail to meaningfully consider much of the evidence presented on behalf of you or yes that's true ron and i and i think it's important to to look at what the v a actually citation to to the record this paragraph i think it really merits examination because unlike prior decisions it notes destruction of property and this is something that is  not been cited by be a passing fact in chan case as there is no confiscation of property so it's different it kind of sets this case apart from in chan and the cases that that cite that documents i put on a website other lorries get them and they show the documents from your hometown and the b s this just be a decision says we don't want it we won't consider documents from somebody else's hometown well  the two thousand and seven profile and prior reports are listed in the same cite string citation as the the congressional executive committee on china which is has a quite a different view well  because unless i'm missing something i'm not seeing that they did they then they mention it they i mean the citations in that paragraph there's a citation to an exhibit that's a rare i think that c report but i don't see beyond that any other discussion of the c d c report am i correct one hundred percent correct that's that is that is a signal the fact of this decision and you know four surgeries quote unquote or for a remedial measure and they can't find you then your house gets torn down that's that's mr cox you with this case is all about is showing changed country conditions well i we can and however we don't get to it the board has not denied and this isn't make any analysis of the changes from two thousand which was we argue to the to the board we argued in our brief to this court that two thousand conditions ago we can rely on the one nine hundred ninety eight profile which is so slacks and forstmann and what not and we relying on the c e that's what that's what we're that's and that's i think goes back to very first point is in this case about evidence that that the b i a may have not considered evidence found some of it not to have been authenticated so my question for you is what types of factors do you think that our effort to authenticate documents is properly required by the circuit and that that and that has been my view has has been those requirements have been fulfilled in this case  which we argue are public documents that require you know you're not you're not relying so obviously you're not relying solely on the lack of that occasion these documents but you're saying that together with all the other items  mention this is something that should be taken into account i guess what we're trying to find out is how do we characterize a lack of authentication i mean is that alone carry the day or is it in connection with three or so there are lots of pieces of the puzzle that together i'm not going to say one of the other is dispositive but where we here we've tried six different ways to authentic a documents in this case and what are those  considered in can a connection with the website documents with the comparison with the website is a completely different where you can argue right that there is some  within a website to that which you have affirmatively submitted to some authority and heard nothing in return or write their different documents with different avenues that this panel may have to sift through some of this and this side what's been authenticated and what has not we may i underscore have to do right so input it's important that we know what you're relying upon is a theory about cation were various pieces well let me let me talk about those local documents because they're quite key in this case from her hometown in the home county of the enzyme i've spoken of  the attempts to authentic eight and which i think alone is sufficient to give them some weight and not just to dismiss them out of hand but not not only is there have we done that it's a comparison i mean we  of these campaigns and how the target management system is inherently coercive and they get people according to targets in quotas that's in the c and that's just just spelled out you know word for word in the documents that we have so i think considering those two together is my main argument why these are should be browning for the respondent u s attorney general is burning judge wood in the case certainly hit the nail on the head when she wrote that routine can be numbing and this score is not on the wearer of what has so often been the very very heavy caseload that has been managed by the government and by the i a e a in particular but this march that in its discussion of some pretty important evidence is brief your honor however the question is whether that the board adequately addressed the arguments presented whether it went through the evidence and whether within its broad discretion rationally concluded that the evidence failed to demonstrate a material change country conditions agree tang to the enforcement of the policies  specific pages of that report that address the family planning issues and if you actually look at the report itself is very general it talks about the national policy and the way that policies being implemented in many provinces in china and if you look at that while the two thousand and nine c c c report does i believe have three specific references to incidents of what you would consider to be coercive sterilization in fujian province the two thousand  report has no such reference and if you look at one page one seventeen to eighteen of the records specifically where references coercive sterilization who jump province is not mentioned at that only  think that the board looked at this evidence and simply to sirt determined that it did not show the material change in conditions relevant to  likelihood of facing persecution in her local area i don't find it troubling though it went in a very brief opinion in great lengths to go through particular consequences including for the first time according to your adversary of destruction of property but that there is no national policy of course of sterilization there are no prevention policies within who john and while there might be outlier in forcers that go beyond what is required those are isolated incidents and it doesn't show the overall material changing conditions that would be necessary for efficient or to overcome the statutory bar for an untimely number are going to reopen  your knowledge that because the board sees a lot of these cases it does have i would call it a streamlined approach i mean it could have just summarily dismissed it didn't do that it did go through the evidence acknowledge her arguments particularly the argument she made with regard to the reliability of the two thousand and seven reports so the question for this court is whether there's enough to discern whether it was a pimp use of discretion for the board to deny this motion to reopen and i believe that there are there is sufficient there is sufficient analysis for the court do that the court at this court has said that the board does not need to write a lengthy opinion or go through each evidence piece by piece this is over a thousand pages of documents this is not that's a big deal and well the question remains whether that would be i didn't even mention it here did that mean i've i don't want to i mean this is a matter of policy stand but i mean it seems to me that the credibility of the is is at stake in some of these cases when the seventh circuit has said some of what they've said i mean judge i understand that the chuang case i believe was the case that also judge posner went outside of the record to find certain evidence and this body is confined to what is what was presented to the board in this case we can't always determine what the board relied upon and that's the that's the very point but i think you can in this case you are i mean that the board did go through the evidence and the specific localized evidence that was critical for petitioners claim or were the documents that the board found were insufficiently authenticated and the board acknowledged this court's decisions and leah and lou which is is it that that was not authenticate well the board so i believe on page the end of page two of his decision that the foreign documents had not been sufficiently authenticated and it referenced the petitioners letters acknowledged that she had made an attempt to get them authenticated but at the time does not the same as establishing authentication so why do you think is necessary that occasion to be satisfactory in the lou cases first of all those were those decisions were issued within the context of an immigration proceeding so what a judge should admit or deny and it was improper this court found for the judge to reject certain expert testimony or other evidence when the person hadn't been given a proper opportunity to explain why that evidence wasn't available this is a motion to reopen and timely motion to reopen and it's the petitioners burden to demonstrate the authenticity documents are authentic what would you have to i believe we would have to do the same thing i mean we would have to go through a consular official assume you fail and you want to you because you've got radio sounds they're not communicating with united states they cut off all ties what kind of things would you be presenting to the i would have sat to be satisfied self that those documents could authenticate them under the by the c f r are authentic well we'd have to short of the strict application of rev adventure rule strictures we do it district courts do it rather in proceedings for example sentencing proceedings what's wrong with floor because he's the one last question that that leaves me frankly with the conclusion that your position is you can try to get this in somehow but we're not going to tell you how conditions in this case i would say that they are consistent with the other state department reports and the board weighed those reports accordingly and as i pointed out before the two thousand and ten report doesn't contain mention of province in terms of using coercive sterilization two thousand and nine report contained if i counted correctly three incidents and so the question remains whether that's evidence that compels the conclusion that condition to change materially such that the board of use its discretion by  declining to credit that evidence and we submit that it's not so compelling and there were and yet we're confronted at least on some of these issues in this case with a board of order and opinion that  with these issues only a pretty high degree of generality rather than specificity so why is it inappropriate to send it back and ask as the second circuit to to drill discretion for the board to reject it or to not consider it if that's how the court reads the board's decision if you want to call it harmless error i don't know but i just consider and so from the board's perspective when it's faced with these many types of cases if the evidence doesn't offer something that calls into question the assessments made from those earlier reports including the two thousand and eleven report which is in the record but petitioner made no mention of it in the motion to reopen or and in the p f are to this court then it's not an of discretion for the board to determine that chip conditions haven't changed materially to get petitioner over the statutory bar to motion to reopen and it's at the government's position that in an authenticated document for for whatever reason simply should not be considered the board and immigration judge are can consider and they often do i mean i'm in a position of only seeing the denials of these cases and that's often the basis for denial  not to say that every piece of localized evidence that's not authenticated just is rejected out of hand i mean i can't really speak to that but the board and the immigration judge certainly grant a good number of these  cases as i said before we're in a position of seeing the denials and a question as you know whether the board properly considered the evidence for public consider the arguments race we maintain that it did  the considerable workload that the b i has if our decisions need to tree with great care the potential for what in the discovery process you call a document dump by noted in this case that there were you know in the area of seventy five exhibit spanning more than a thousand pages i  aware of that so well the thrust of my comment and question is is there any danger that we our opinions could suggest a need for the board to consider everything before it and seek to explain everything before as opposed to that which is of some particular measure of relevancy and weight is that a policy concern in terms of its work well to be sure if the board were held to a standard that required it to go through piece by piece fourteen hundred or you know thousand pages of documents that would would some would certainly  i think burden the agency i can't speak to their internal procedures so i don't really know you know staffing wise how how they deal with their caseload so you know keep confess not to being familiar totally within our but it's not like i don't believe it's like with the court where you have the page number you know for a brief i don't think there are those kind of limitations on petitioners and for the agency substantially addressed not that every single document be addressed and i might my one last point is that you know that the be actually in this decision says we're not going to consider anything that conflicts with the state department unless it has retracted or corrected its prior conclusions and use those words retract absent retraction the state department is conclusive that's in this decision and i think that that position that