review slee unavailable evidence the government disagrees and says that's not what the it was saying in that first paragraph at the top of page for the record and so if the government doesn't want to defend that then that's fine with us although i don't think that's the  natural reading of that paragraph if that's if the government's position is right there and that concession is taken that leaves just the issue of whether mr singh showed changed circumstances since the time of his last hearing u time is limited yet right to the heart of that as i understand it they changed circumstances in india insist in your view a very here in the u s and threatened to disappear him and said that the father would never see his son again if you returned so sort of both well that's sort of a causal link but he does have to show not just personal changes but changes  t i think and i think here there's that background sort of the background of elements you mentioned are changes arising in india i think it's it's not it i think even if that were the case a specific kind of new development like the police making a threat to him here would be also a changed circumstances arising in india within the meaning of the statute but you're absolutely right that there is much more than that here there is this whole series of events of which read to him particularly as just that threat was you know it was different both in its motives and its tenets so verity and concreteness and that was based on the father's activity and it was sort of a threat to do what had been done to the father which was one  detention and one beating which i think is at best a borderline asylum claim under this court's precedent whereas now others in the context of this crackdown and surveillance of separatists are brothers it's very specific threat they know that he's active of discretion if the decision is contrary to special evidence that's abuse of discretion and here i think we as a word is a good characterization in fact they don't explain that conclusion at all they just say we just not persuaded by at what work more do they have to do i mean they've talked about some of the factors that are in their mind  and do we use the same substantial evidence standard in this context as we do for typical sampling and in other words do we have to be compelled to reach a different result well i think i think here there is i mean in terms of the explanation i would disagree respectfully i think they do have to explain why i mean the standard is is material changes just saying there's not material changes isn't enough in the rest of that paragraph  give some explanations with respect to the evidence about religion i think those explanations are legally a rony yes because official proclamations are not just you know it's the actual sort of increase in violence and danger but they don't give any explanation explain myself very well i guess in my question that is i read it they're saying we can't assess whether there is a material change because we don't have a good enough baseline for what how this issue that is separateness a broader was in delaware at the time of the year or your application so we don't we can't really determine that it's material because we don't know where it started and that may you may not agree with that but it is an explanation so that's so that's one reason they give i think that reason is different from the change the evidence of changes isn't enough so i think they say that it's not enough of a chance not a material change and they say it's sort of  doesn't meet kind of an evidential requirement to present evidence as of the year two thousand and ten and so on that issue a agree that's an explanation but that's a legally erroneous explanation it doesn't there's nothing in the statute or the regulation or any that christians haven't increasingly been the target of islamic extremist movements in the past two or three years that's two or three years prior to the filing of the motion to reopen two thousand and thirteen that's a lame thirty one f third at eleven thirty eight so i don't think there is any support and if anything in the case the government sites is directly contrary the b a in an unpublished one member opinion like this can't just create a new evidence or a requirement that he had to present reports about two thousand and ten when there is all this evidence of just like consoling and increased violence although at the end last two days ago they specifically found whatever hindu christian violence occurred as existed for many years prior to the i j s decision so that's a finding that the b i made yes well end of christian violence i think that that finding is directly contrary to the evidence which they don't address which is the u s government report the u s commission on international religious freedom took from two thousand and fifteen saying that in the past two three years two thousand and thirteen fourteen fifteen violence against christians has increased that's in step with this surge in hindu nationalism that's also led so your of is that they evaluated the evidence before them in such a flawed manner that they abused their discretion but well they didn't address that report at all which was the key foundation in the motion to reopen at pages forty to forty one discussing the changes in violence against christians they can't just disregard arguments altogether they have to consider the actually some indication they consider the evidence when the only thing they say about it is directly contrary to the reports from the u s government agency like the one that normally would be given a lot of weight well they do say several times that the evidence you submitted isn't sufficient to demonstrate change conditions and are you saying in response to such a great question that they that they require  all of the evidence as opposed to saying the evidence you submitted is insufficient they're required to address our arguments and discuss the key evidence that we said in the motion to reopen and i think this court has held that repeatedly both in the m t r and asylum context that the board can't just ignore arguments or ignore evidence that that undermines the decision they want to reach in a conclusory assertion just setting forth a legal standard saying it's not and that without explanation isn't enough may please the court my name is kosar you can morey and i represent the united states in this case this petition for of you should be denied because the board did not abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners third on time motion really respond to what the argument yes in the following way i take the change conditions to be an increase in police interest make any sense because the material that he submitted is very human in a later time and a later time the police began to be more interested in separatists who were act other countries and if that is a recent development it's completely irrational to say well he didn't mention this recent development before it developed so that seems to me to be completely unhelpful which india has not changed that is they were interested in man party members before and they're still interested in the members now are you saying the board doesn't have to address the arguments he raises no your honor the board d address it where in the first where does it look as he talks he said that the board didn't address the report at all or the argument that well he raised the i believe he was referring to the violence against christians  that has to do with subsequent part of the board's decision and the board sufficiently addresses that and in particular the violence against christians is really irrelevant to his claim that he as a sikh indian will be petitioners you can see that there is no general change in country conditions his claim is that he specifically has been threatened in november two thousand and fifteen and that constitutes a change in country conditions no it's but it but see that's a misunderstanding of the claim and that's my exact concern and the b i seems to have the same view it's not that he is evidence of change country conditions because it's coupled with news articles and other information including his and his father's statements that in general the police are now going after people i brought that they didn't used to go after  start off by saying much evidence regarding political opinion revolves around two isolated incidents occurring in october and november twenty fifth in and then at the scribes the motion and exhibits you through j j does not demonstrate material i just was responding i guess to your earlier comment that the board that made factual finding to briefly distinguish the case in salem versus whole year after the petitioner argues that he doesn't need to submit evidence from this prior hearing but that's contrary to the regulation which specifically refers to the prior hearing contrary let's say you did something in twenty town and you are you have or her affidavits relating to what's happened in the last six months and it's horrible you don't have to go back and relive again twenty ten you may have a minute for about almost  thank you judge so briefly just on the regulation i think your honor is right my colleague was about to say that at the end of that regulation it refers to the prior hearing i think that's what he meant when he said that but that last that last clause in the says just returns back to the previously unavailable requirement it says if such evidence you have to present evidence of change circumstances and such evidence has to have been not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the prior hearing that's that's not setting forth some different evidentiary standard as to what the evidence of changed circumstances has to be that's just reiterating that it has to be new since the prior hearing and that we clearly have here just like in saline where the court returned despite the dicta that the government relies on in the substance of its conclusions and holdings it refers back time and again to the fact that there is these reports of increased violence that are after two thousand and six that have occurred since two thousand and six and that's the same thing we have here with  pect to two thousand and ten i think the b s a since it could be i thought that it could rely on this evidence your apartment that it invented for this case and so it didn't have to stop until we address the actual evidence and that's why i didn't address it that's my best reading