is that alright with you and then so he'll do the whole argument and then you'll get up an answer and then you answer us or you know the fire that pending before this court i think you should speak up yes you are the question is this incorporate their coins now before two thousand for the country and supporting evidence did not say how children born outside china to chinese nationals who killed it never mentioned  furthermore there was no evidence of what financial penalties were violators since two thousand for the settlements has come now to i beginning with the beginning with the two thousand five but now in two thousand and six in the state department report there is evidence across the persians associations are taking place in fujian province so on one side you have the government saying up until two thousand and five there may have been province but there is no report that the children born outside of china are counted the same account the same way as children born inside of china but we now we have additional evidence to prove that there is no distinguishing she has not demonstrated eligibility that she would be first to undergo sterilization so i would urge the court to look at the evidence closely and find that unless china is e only circuit is find that the evidence does show that forced abortions and sterilizations are taking place  from killing economy and jail if you want to stop the person from having children position personally however the law says if you can establish that people are forced to undergo bushes or sterilization they are eligible for asylum now you want to look at the reports policy a national local policy where people are being forced undergo motions or sterilizations and i'm talking about partially eight hundred pages of documents you are and it's this is just a very fluid situation where these documents are why thank you and the critical question here in terms of the board decision is did chen show materially changed circumstances between his two thousand and three hearing before the immigration judge and when he filed his motion to reopen on in two thousand and seven march two thousand and seven so that's really our window because we're just reviewing the board's decision for abuse of discretion and did the board based on the evidence before it reasonably conclude that there was not evidence well it would depend on whether that evidence was available at the time of his earlier hearing for instance if there's a report from say two thousand and one which was before his hearing before the immigration judge but it wasn't available until two thousand and five it was after the immigration judge decision he could present that as previously unavailable evidence and that could be considered by the board says this that's right that's in the statute twelve twenty nine a torture or a rather detailed this whole argument that he has to satisfy the reopening that you were to means that there's no you can't rely on things here and therefore he fails because if he's relying on personal changes here you can't satisfy the read the statute reopening therefore we never get to eleven we never get to the issues changes  court can consider any evidence any other evidence of change country conditions so the extent extent you argues that condition that the two thousand four hundred five country port evidence changed country conditions in china since it's hearing the the board properly did consider those evidence that evidence in determining whether there was a change in country conditions it's only that the fact that he has given birth the u s citizen children cannot be considered in determining whether the motion to reopen was time but your position is motion  those recent cases you know you show no you're on i'm actually talking about the human gene case which is the second circuit one this is a somewhat different issue than the showcase  asylum application what you have is this is the dream is pointed out there's two statutes that kind of work together but there's no instructions in the regulation of statute as to how they're supposed to work together one says that an asylum hurdles of twelve twenty nine that's correct john and that's because we got these two statutes that don't that are ambiguous in terms of how they relate to one of our jurisdiction we have to show you before we look at by the the now after the ninety days there it's only you can only rely on change conditions in the country where you're sending them back that's actually good for language from a repeat silent these words as any change of any kind that affects his right china doesn't materially affect you it has no bearing on your personal circumstances so if you follow a motion to reopen based on change country conditions without supporting affidavits and application five eighty nine the border the immigration judge six country point was in the record it is in several records it means not be in this particular case but it is contained in the record depending on when the motion was filed the country poor comes out on march seventh of each year so if it's filed the motion we are there for march seventh on a particular year that your country report would be published is actually for the year before so all these motions to be open if you look at it together combined will have all the country ports up through two there is evidence of new to change country conditions or worse country conditions whether it's based upon the country report that says sterilizations are taking place or whether it's based upon the boy's decision a matter supported by the country po arguments for the second one province is on the right and that's where the skinheads operate and so these people can come illegally because they can get the boats to come and you don't get that anywhere else well i don't know why we should make rules just because right now the evidence does show that in their provinces people are being sterilized and as far as what happens in china it should affect us because we are the reason to get back to you but we're expecting you to come to a different conclusion than a very specific said there has been no change not that what you say they not be true but that it hasn't changed since the hearing in two thousand and three they gave the evidence to support it but what the contra where the contradiction rise is up until two thousand and five b i a kept saying there is no evidence to prove your claim or your claim of future fear there is not enough evidence  not enough evidence now there is enough evidence and of the icing there is enough evidence and what it shows is there hasn't been a change so on one on one side they're saying you can't earlier in two thousand and two thousand and five you can't  claim of future your because there's not enough evidence now there's enough evidence to be i say ok there is evidence but it's not showing any change in have you cake in order to call chen several years ago or  and so with a board right here remain notion of the disconnect between what the country says its laws or regulations are what happens seems to be unknown in china for quite some time  same way as children boarding side of china the evidence shows that the policy of one shot one child one child policy is being enforced through non voluntary means and the evidence shows because of that