circumstances in this case however we feel that chandra ever since holder seven fifty one if there are ten thirty four or one circuit two thousand and fourteen is basically the case that should govern in this case there are significant changes first of all it's respondent in armenia about his activities in the us at age seventy nine the march first two thousand and eight incident where there were demonstrations after the february one thousand elections in two thousand and eight ten protesters i believe  and those photos are often seen by the armenian governments and he continued participating even after the election all the way up to two thousand and twelve and the armenian doctor by him at the end was killed in a political murder and that was discovered in the i did not accept it seems everything in the statement is true there's nothing in here that's inherently unreliable and they had to accept it as true so therefore there are significant changes in country conditions and his personal circumstances it's coupled together his personal see what happens to hers basically in this case or is he strong i think that's what it's going to say he has a stronger a claim much stronger claim i believe not just based on his family's background but his own activities and also it's taking four or five years to get an interview in and i'm not even scheduling interviews for the last i don't want story with the rest we're just trying to work through what's happened here the first motion to reopen yes for motions that's correct and you're under the second you haven't demonstrated sufficient sufficient facts to fornicate it was hope that's correct i can address that you are just trying to work through the so yeah and then you have two others that's and they're his father had been granted political asylum he indicated to mr etc and we have to accept the fact that's true in this case there's no adverse credibility finding that his father indicated he was worried about going back but he wanted to set a path for his children given that there are attack it's circumstantial evidence regarding when he left how soon it happened and so far there is no direct evidence to back i understand i mean it's not the same but he went over there and was yeah  i mean he just died from a heart attack maybe just unfortunate dying from a heart i'm trying to figure out the connection to to say that he was killed that's i think for me you know i understand you and that's why i believe th but we would argue is that first of all with regard to the equity c s appeared three straight years in never missed an appearance he went on the twenty fifth was told that the court was canceled he called his attorneys up basically in this case the crux of it your honor it's clear she had a lot of issues you know here in the ninth circuit and within the state bar but the issue that's very difficult trying to figure out isn't that just think he admitted that he was notified of the february twenty fifth hearing not the march first hearing not when it was rescheduled so was sponsored by the court that's now he admits that read because he realized that he had been ordered deported and she probably felt something was amiss because he knew there was a court date and he went to see canon and she got another bad lawyer  exactly she told him she would file a motion to reopen according to what i see in the evidence again i was not so attorney with those and the like but basically she told them she would file a motion it's not clear if it's an ineffective assistance motion or what kind of motion but she member to he's gone within a month of getting this order he's aware of the order of removal he says i don't know what he says but it seems to me what he does is he says oh my gosh my lawyer screwed up here and he goes and sees another because there were multiple attorneys in that case so what's the evidence that the second lawyer provided effective assistance we know the first lawyer we don't know the first lawyer was disbarred so maybe we can presume  reopen at any time if he has been removed in abstention and demonstrates he did not receive proper notice of the hearing in which the agency issued the order of removal so here time it's not set in stone and basically there was the boy did not address the timeframes that he had between the second counsel the third counsel told him you can't file a motion then there were incidents in his life where he did not get to file the motion within because of his father's and his brother's passing and then he filed as soon as he consult the witness or ras so i think the boy did not analyze that from my understanding of the record and how she provided affected the systems well if she got notice of the hearing date and didn't give it to him which is clear from his declaration that he never got notice he went on the twenty fifth to court he's gone to every gearing his would more likely not be granted asylum which is parents were and his brother were i know this record doesn't tell me this at least i can't find where here's where his claims going to be based on the same evidence  that's correct we're different than his father that's not clear as judge i would say that's not clear from the record your honor but i believe it's similar in the sense that there was the same opposition movement and the same activities  absentia motion or the emotional upset the in the century order equitably told during the time there's a long time period in which he appears to receive no assistance of counsel at all well  it why would it be i mean if they did it i don't know that it would be a bad argument but once she told him in november of two thousand and five she returned the files and said i'm not going to file and said i'm not going to period the time should be told while mr cannon was purportedly working on his case when she told him i i'm not going to file a motion i didn't file a motion i'm not going to file a motion and then the time would start to run again and so that would have been in november of two thousand five then he didn't then he didn't file his motion until november of two thousand and sat or case when does the time i thought our case law said that the time to really begin to run until he learns that he's she didn't tell me i thought the hearing was a week later i showed up she never told me that the hearing was a week earlier which she says in her motion to withdraw so she filed a motion to withdraw her as as his representative that her office this is for thirty nine of the thirteen docket number record her office had repeatedly tried to get in contact with him by mail and by phone and they were unsuccessful and that he had been really wasn't measuring the credibility of her motion versus his affidavit whether or if they were we got a problem you know what the board said was even if that is true that he that he didn't get notice of what the board said was that a motion to reopen we don't we don't because he didn't comply with the listener requirements with her we don't have any statement from her as far as what she said to him either so let me ask this one thing about miss cannon i think there's hints in the record also had problems with the bar what what is in the record is and i didn't check to see what can status was with our quarter with york with i did not see her on the list of attorneys that had been suspended before the bar i checked a couple of i had last week i think that she was not on the list of practitioners that that could not practice in immigration court all we have is what he three hundred forty one it's treated as an administrative action and it says this number has no public record of discipline so we give you the big picture question and see if you can we can work backwards to it which disturbing about this case is that this petitioner appears to have a good case for asylum because everybody else in this family seems to get it he doesn't show up at his hearing and in the world goes crazy for but it seems like this case and i've never discussed you know ask for this and open court but i just wonder if this other government would consider mediation in this kind of case considering the history here i'm always a little nervous when it comes to talking about mediation because the confidentiality i mean we certainly could we certainly could consider that you see the disturbing part of this case on the surface which is that i have a serious errors for somebody who appears like you might well have received relief had he not had bad lawyers now that so analyzing them independently you know your case may well be strong and when i look at the equities of this without any knowledge of the knowledge that you have i worry that this may be a case where procedures have prevented the same result that would have occurred for the rest of the family how do you respond to that i will there and don't tell me anything you shouldn't but that's that big picture troubles me and you're in the business of doing justice because you're the department of justice right right we don't know that it's you know a foregone conclusion that that he would have been granted asylum but there are there there there has to be there has to be an incentive to show she which he does which which he says that he have the incentive to show up but then there also has to be the incentive to be diligent in pursuing your claims because otherwise you will have petitioners trying to come back granted asylum under the question of was he prejudiced by his attorneys actions so that's some we're not we're not contending that you know that there's prejudice and i know we can't make the parties do anything they don't want to do i just suggest this because it was the legal parts of this case i can and i analyze and rule one way or the other on when i step backwards from it and look at the submit airline tickets showing that the his father went over at the end of october there's a death certificate that shows that he died i think it's november sixth of two thousand based on his political activities when he was on armenia and page three hundred sixty six and three hundred sixty seven on the record he says he was he was threatened by the government because of his political opinion and his new to this new motion to reopen in the thirteenth case was based on his political activit the united states so the first asylum application was his political activities in armenia the second one is his political activities in the united states and basically he's saying i've become more famous and now i'm more at risk and that's a change in his personal circumstances might that have that link to his condition what he's claiming is the problem in her me but he but he has to show that conditions in armenia are quality points and they were point councils point and change in the government and what not but but he's but he's not shown i mean there may be a different government a different president but it's still he still you know his involvement is with the with the that the conditions in the country were qualitatively different than they were at the time of his initial proceeding and that is from a case of this court that's a quote knowledge of my body five issue ation maybe worse because he's higher profile or you're saying it doesn't matter because the country hasn't really changed actually that's that's our position that has been higher profile is that it is his change in personal circumstances motion which i feel strongest about basically there are change country conditions in this case and under chandra the quote directly is that it can't be based soley on personal circumstances but changes in country conditions made getting worse it doesn't have to be complete changing conditions just worsening of conditions a sufficient there was a march first incident where during a hundred thousand people in a demonstration police attacked protesters there was the article about how the di had you had a hearing yeah you would have this you would demonstrate the baseline but now i think you've got it demonstrated in your motion to reopen so how does the baseline what the only place like that we can compare with is that it's a change in the regime it hasn't gotten better it's gotten worse because there are attacks on protesters and so forth which are not in the two thousand and four country reports granted it's always been that in armenia but it gets significantly wor there are the article gives a paper article which as a country condition about one respondent is doing published in armenia there are police came to the house grounds that they yelled and scared the kids but they also said stuff that's in his affidavit about his political activities that's a change country getting significantly worse right now if he goes back because of the recent changes in his circumstances country conditions it's going to be much worse for him than it was eleven years going through thousand and four that's indisputable i think in this case and with regard well basically also your honor in this case there is the issue of whether or not the country reports the country reports do indicate also that the police impunity especially the two thousand and ten report indicates that it's increased police impunity brutality towards protesters not sure if the court convicted ishall notice of this year's country conditions but there's very severe incidents happening in armenia today in fact towards opposition members so we would be viewed as an opposition member absolutely absolutely and he would be much more street today than he was in two thousand and four under robert koch against a regime versus today search and regime even though it's the same party in power so