three children which it which is the same scenario as before the court today and so that whole record which is a couple of one thousand pages considering right so the question is is there a change a material change of circumstances and we can we know that in two thousand and nine when the board decided they as they said that physical coercion was uncommon and un sanctions that is the that is the st goalpost we have to measure it against the nd goal post of what is the conditions now which according to even the government reports not only th are sterilized as opposed to chinese nationals who remain in china well that would that's not a reason the board denied this case so that's not that issue is not before the court but it is also inserted in this record that judge hyman found that the children are counted in the in the family planning policy because the under chinese nationality law even u s born i know i know they're counted but what i'm asking is there that's not necessary right because the fact that there's a a policy in place suffices for your client have a well founded fear sterilization yes that he and that the policy applies to him and his family it's in place contemporary proof that would show that to be so so how could we say that the d n a eric in this regard well your honor i am a little bit puzzled by the question because we do have evidence that it is contemporarily in force and in a two thousand and ten late weighing township documents you quote evidently reasonable they were proud they were ten years old right i'm not the us government it's hard to get back these are these are internal documents that are not publicly available that i've been able to get only a few of them from that time period so i don't rely on that iraq that i rely on the c e c c the congressional commission report they listed i agree that on the on the decision they they went down the list you know where if you look at that they go where they listed them in this string site you know they go through the reports you know starting with you know examine a b and then skip over to the v x y z they they cut out all of those campaign reports of they don't even like to mention and then and then  words that are favorable to the position of the board that there is no coercion that the that there is no change from the dissimilar never acquired they're just required to consider the evidence right they don't have to parse it out and talk about the yeah i was a cons and so yeah absolutely right that's that's right i mean it is the judgment of the court is that they consider it or did they merely react and can you cite some of the evidence that's favorable to your client that the board  congressional report let's just focus on the two thousand and seventeen that the you know compelling women to undergo before procedures and it's right in the report this is for sterilization not only forced abortion i guess be view of the family planning policy st that it's unsanctioned and we see that it is it is not only sanctioned but enforced by harsh penalties for people who don't don't do their dirty work so it is sanctioned and it is common and that's the opposite of the two thousand and nine conclusion unsanctioned and i'm coming but the bottom line is nothing that show could temporarily that people saw proof that people were actually subjected to these policies which were not up today i'm i do again two thousand and seventeen congressional reports as forced campaign forced implementation it's right it's right in this congressional court not my financings it's right in the in the congressional report as it was in prior years of this report my read of these cases is that generally we've been denying requests to reopen based on the population control policy in this province and last the petition consider no i mean they listed everything you know and the question again is does it just a reaction and and when they take the evidence that it is submitted and only say only talk about the  to i think it's on their this is in that the record page for at the at the you know the bottom full paragraph where it says they don't they don't exhibit the bit f f but they have a list have to make an extra jesus of every piece of evidence but they have to consider the major in a significant way deal with the evidence which is in the record and they have they have failed to do that and  everything but it but the reason i'm homing in on f f h h n j j is that each of those exhibits includes evidence that's favorable to petition or and in order for us to exercise our review shouldn't we insist that the agency consider evidence at least tell us what he thinks about evidence  one that that evidence isn't a change in the from the evidence that he presented before and that is that that those documents seem very similar to the documents that were in the prior proceeding and nd off and this is really important that there has been a there has been a big change in country conditions and that is in january th china moved to a two child policy rendering all of those other documents those those earlier documents largely out of date so the board did consider this but the thing is is that in the sorry day for the good work to child policy which is a liberalisation right which is a liberal is a shortage but but f f says that after a woman had her nd child she sterilized right more heavily sterilized that is a two thousand here document here ms lin is already has three children right that is correct so why why is it unreasonable or irrational for her to fear that if she's repatriated that should be she too would be forcibly sterilized if we look at document f f it is a document from two thousand and eleven and that predates the change in the  points out that those reports are ameliorative and if you look at the reports if you look to see e c c report or if you look at the canadian immigration org report both of which are in the record both of them say that after the change in the policy to large extent you know it it's superficially a miller to there's been a change in the regulations and various of the provinces we don't know what those are and if we need if we're going to say something if the board is going to say something about where particular wants to show that she's entitled to reopening she needs to show not only that there is a change of policy but that that policy will be enforced in a particular way and if there is that two thousand and six change in policy which changes in regulations around the pot provinces for how those are to be enforced we aren't going to know what takes place on the ground until we have evidence of things on the ground and right now all of the evidence that is introduced with sterilization or retribution that even though there they have that they date they have longstanding procedures which have not been show to have changed even though they are not david today and there's nothing we have in the records showing that today people are being subject to that actually people being subject but given the lead limb and the two other cases you have you have a lot of  paddling up straighter richer i mean the board certainly could have said more than it did but the board here did say enough i think particularly in light of the change in the two child policy just not sure that i struggle with that it certainly supports you because it's a liberalisation right right you're on but this woman already has three children so she's already out of compliance with the two child policy you know the cases that that we were ruling for the government in recent years involving even one the one child policy was employees from the agency was opining that there was evidence in the record to suggest that chinese nationals who spent time in the united states who had american born children who are repatriated are not subjected to forced abortion forced or zation but rather they were hit with economic sanctions writer and you're probably familiar with that one i hasten to write but this just doesn't seem to fit into that category and they're not making an economic persecution argument but i'm struggling with the logic inherent in the notion that someone with three children would not still be penalized under a policy of government policy in a totalitarian state that says you're not allowed to have more than two right your honor one historically and this i guess i need to step out there were some exemptions for example if you had a child that was disabled or you had a daughter the st as your st child and in fact misled has both of those her st daughter tracy is both disabled severely disabled and she is a girl which means that if you were to play that old policy forward under those old circumstances she would be allowed to have a nd child issue out have a rd child now we don't know because we don't have the evidence in the record and so why not  evidence can be either marshaled or not marshaled on that question with the petition remember it could have foreseen this problem and brought that evidence in the st dance well but the petitioner has put into the record those exhibits i mentioned that talk about fo sterilization even after the two child policy so if if there's evidence in the record of forced sterilization after this quote more liberal policy seems pretty supportive of her well founded fear that she's going to be subjected to that treatment upon her return right let me address that two points i think the st point is is that some of those doctors for example doesn't post date the two child policy one region in which there is ready a campaign for sterilization but it doesn't date to two thousand and sixteen it dates to two thousand and fifteen that's the one that's the evidence of what the area will look however there is the discussion that they continue to use the same propaganda language however if you go back i mean that is consistent with with i guess c e c reports that even predate the they talk about the ways in which the power of the the one child policy was enforced and this is in the prior this is during the time of the prior decision that they use in addition to monitoring reproductive cycles mandatory contraception mandatory birth permits coercive fines for failure comply and in some cases for sterilization and abortion so these were in these documents these overhead these thirty thousand dollars foot documents even before before the board in the prior decision this is not so your real argument isn't that it's it's not so bad it's it's still pretty bad but it talked change country conditions when compared t that's the crux of your argument that is correct and that we have the change in january th which is ameliorated so which makes largely almost all of this evidence it does make it out of date but to the extent that he is relying on it it is similar it is the same as the evidence the board in large measure is the board rejected back in two thousand and eight in finding that there was no change in country conditions well you evidence of past requirements and so forth that there's nothing in the record to show that those requirements and those of those prohibitions are no longer in effect essentially as of august two thousand and sixteen at least twenty nine dollars provincial level jurisdictions reportedly reportedly had revised their population and family planning regulations in accordance with the amended national law that is a positive statement that fujinon had revised their regulations i mean there are other provinces but fusion where the petitioner is from have revised the regulations so there is a positive there is positive evidence in this record that shows that that old evidence having to do with the old policies and old regulations and their enforcement that stale if the can i guess i guess your point is to the extent there are changed country conditions  its ameliorative change not harsher change that is for you and i guess the counter argument is that the mealy ration zur still insufficient to give her sufficient assurance that she will be forcibly sterilized right but the board but there is a high but on review as the factual as to the factual matter of that the board you know left the board acted wide you know in a way that no reasonable if you could take it or came to a dump on the agency without advocacy that sort of you know points and we've got that quotation that we cite from the supreme court about you know judges are not like pigs hunting for profit i'm think that the immigration judges in the b i a would probably have even more sympathy for that sentiment is that a problem in this particular case can you help us with that because i just wonder about that right think they're sort of i wouldn't be surprised if there is a sense that us having considered these do we need to talk about them detail again at the same time i think they didn't talk about them adequately here and if they're going to do that shouldn't they shouldn't the agency be explicit incorporate by reference you know the great writer magnum opus that says you know we've considered the thirty seven exhibits in great detail here's what we think about them and write a lengthy opinion and then of the next case when they see the exact same exhibits they could say you know right what we wrote last month but there is nothing like that in this case there's nothing like that in this case no your honor and the board did in fact did do that actually in two thousand and seven right they had a series of decisions where they went through all of this evidence i guess what i'm trying to get out is is it enough for counsel to do the document dump on the agency or is it incumbent upon counsel to actually cite the helpful documents in support of petitioners you know i can't think about anything off the top my head i can go and look into it and and and and the court a letter on it do you know whether the advocacy here in the agency realm actually pointed to these things or are these things that we  brilliant walkers are finding on the road in this petition petitions council actually i would give credit to petitioners counsel he did go through and he did talk about the various documents throughout so there is so there is pointing there isn't any agency responds with these lengthy string sites and then some of the documents that i had heard to aren't even mentioned right here should we expect more i think the i had your honor the board having considered this especially considering that one of the evidences you know given the change the meal or to change the scale into the booth actively credited and said look these documents say the same they say these things but they don't say anything you know they say that the documents talk about forced abortion and you know of course the version of sterilization and they do but so but that was a thirty thousand dollars level view of you know in those documents and that's what the documents before said but on those documents on the same sorts of doctors before the board found that they weren't sufficient to establish that the individual that misled would be subject to sterilization on their terms because of her three u s born children  thank you so just just briefly you know about the change from one to two part time policy given all that we know about that there's no change to the course in this they didn't say and by the way you can't grab people and throw them in the truck in take them to the hospital there's no there's no sort of amendment or meal you're asian that goes to my conference concern about being forced so so the policy is implemented  as far as we know and as the evidence indicates in exactly the same way as before except that two children are allowed instead of one so and that's this and that make it less likely someone would be treated adversely in two thousand and nineteen than they would be in two thousand and eight i know you are of the evidence is that it's still a reasonable fear that this that the one change what's that what's the change that you're allowed to that you are allowed to have you committed to have is your job and stead of only one but we have three here so it's where we're beyond the policy of limits no matter how you look at it  and what about the thirty thousand dollars foot problem it seems that the agencies underwhelmed with the high level of generality with the policy without sufficient citation to actual incidence of of this occurring particularly with respect to people who are who spent a lot of time in the united states and have had american born children well again that the record the court except that the children count in the policy because  that was the case and in it was strictly an economic penalty that the the family would face based on the birth of the american children well the courts at the you know as coun