presented to the court today regarding the denials of the motion three the first is whether physician or not the regulatory standard requiring a change in circumstances arising in the country of nationality the second is whether the b i changed circumstances requirement of the regulation if the standard with met the court not need not address whether the change country conditions of the statute is qualitatively the same as the changed circumstances of the regulations this court's decision a multi clearly control multi examine the motion to reopen regulation and how that a motion to reopen almost always will be related to the initial claim first trial and withholding of deportation the issue is whether people unknown camera west africa i think if i had a stamp collection i have some down it's a political volatile place privy to the shore there also another prominent activist from s d f who had returned to cameroon in two thousand and ten these this accident was significant because it specifically addresses the lack of evidence that was found before the burra before the immigration judge include an affidavit or other avatar cherry materials and in this case it's really significant because the immigration judge found that there was a lack of credibility regarding a fear of persecution in cameroon because there was no corroboration and so an affidavit would have been s and so big events that occurred in cameroon occur without him being present so was an abuse of discretion for the board to deny the motion space on the lack of affidavit i also wanted to address th regulation stated that a change in circumstances arising in the country of nationality was required to reopen when congress enacted iraq to require a change in country conditions and in march of one thousand nine hundred seventy the regulations were again a ded to require a change in country conditions but only for removal cases and what's interesting is that only the immigration judge motion to reopen regulations were changed but the  deportation where as the immigration judge regulation says removal and the deportation language of changed circumstances was kept for a motion to reopen before the board so the show of the agency's understanding that  filing requirement for asylum the fact that they use changed circumstances in the statutes and change country conditions for the motion to reopen statutes again shows a qualitative difference remain normally not matter but it may come out in a case like this standard i would like to reserve my remaining time me please the court elizabeth cohen on behalf of the united states attorney general the board not abuse of discretion in finding the petitioner failed to establish materially changed circumstances in cameroon to support his untimely and number b regulations require affidavits or other evidence and the bird life and the evidence presented in this case fall in the category or other evidence it did to but i considered it as other evidence but the burden that the  affirmed by this court already and that adverse credibility determination was a broad one it is not a petition or claims based on a lack of cooperation it was based on significant in consistencies and omission credible and the broad goes on to cite part of the immigration judge's decision finding the testimony incredible and that's often unless they get because the the the the the evidence that the teacher submitted in his motion to reopen is i'm reliable on its face and it's apparent from the record and that is when you look at the article submitted a second motion to reopen it a reopen claim the end of the did that begin with a general claim that he was safely in the ivory coast on june eighteenth to two thousand and nine that's the exact date when the article says that he was supposedly detained in cameroon and then he was though he himself because the application indicated that nobody completed it but himself the pi branch does that and another person who served out the application it was laughed greg indicated that he filled it out himself and when the immigration judge asked him about this goes back to the average credibility determination was already found but during that time the immigration judge asked about that about having someone else to write out in he significant that none of those changes or additions or admissions were ever made to his asylum application so his he filled out his asylum application that average credibility stands that it's already been affirmed by the court and looking back now at his motion to reopen the evidence that he submitted the world looked at it and said it was unreliable and in addition to and in addition t fact that it's in addition to the fact that it's unreliable to show himself has not submitted any affidavits or sworn statements to make a difference that in his statement although it doesn't say i declare the penalty perjury it does say the facts set forth here in my personal knowledge and if called upon to do so i would testify to the following does that make any difference your honor it is significant because under this quote case  affidavits that are that affidavits have to be sworn statements and i have versus john how the court recognized that that there's a difference between statements that just say this is what happened  that so many of these people go to the torrijos i don't know whether he went to one of those folks or not but we allow we allow an immigration corps person in this case it doesn't appear that that is what happened and what we're looking at now is the claim is the question of whether the person acted irrationally in retracting the question both document different attorney before the immigration judge amesbury fagan and then a different attorney in victoria which is the motions trail and then i took over from there after the ninth circuit case was filed in addition the respond establishes that the court can only affirm for the reasons stated by the agency so there is no discussion of this inconsistency between when regarding when j j pender was arrested and there cannot be imposed talk rationalisations now made to defend match in addition to counsel states that there were only e mail from hand and the article from two thousand transmitted but in the first motion to reopen there's actually two country condition submitted regarding the arrest of s t s leaders in the record at page ninety three and ninety seven so regardless of penda statement and regardless of the true thousand and ten cameron article the international report usually for the spanish speaking ones but it's the same thing yeah we asked who was the story i don't have that evidence on the record your honor for that he had just had just come from cameroon and went to somebody he trusted he barely spoke english and that person filled it out and as you know notorious don't typically sign the application for asylum they make it look like the person who did it themselves