has been enough change in the country on an individualized basis and the judges typically do take it to get into detail on the individual as basis however in this case the b i and the immigration judge did not do a full analysis and by that i mean the issue of the last police attack or harm at the hands of the police which took place on september two thousand and eighteen was well after the velvet revolution and the individuals who stayed in power the police chief was actually as the record shows the police chief of yerevan the capital of armenia prior to the revolution the prosecutor general who were in power the heads of the police and s s and the prosecutor moreover the issue of whether or not mr bugliosi on still had power in armenia to cause persecution in the future or to use his powers to attack this individual he was an oligarchy and there's a lot of all of arcs unfortunately in armenia who kept their power only a few of them were investigated and the issue of having power through your business as an economic and political clout was never analyzed by the board or the board of immigration appeals or by the immigration judge in this case i think you know the judgment i think your point about the  necessity of looking at his individual circumstances but i want to ask you about a larger question can the government satisfy its burden of establishing change circumstances my only presenting  person's specific circumstances in fact i believe not your honor generally i did the follow up on that i wrote a case in early two thousand and nine being called sing vers presumed that it is unreasonable to relocate and they did not sufficiently implement the presumption and moreover your honor in this case they did not address all of the elements for relocation the board also admittedly did do some analysis but not to the extent needed because there is a presumption that there is a well founded fear of future persecution and they looked at whether or not mr bugliosi on was a part of the government and just because he is no longer in the government they assume he cannot cause harm to this individual any longer they also look at that the fact that there's some investigation of corruption and there's a new government which is hopeful but unfortunately even after the record was a stablish so i won't get into that there are in this case we see where police after the revolution are still the painting and harming individuals and the same individual stayed in power they did not address any of that couldn't bring to bear the information that he thought he was more of a historian than under the present circumstances then that the idea if out that the circumstances had changed sufficiently based on information  region he's a historian and that essentially he can address on this your side believe it was incorrect to the record establishes that it was incorrect to dismiss him as an expert however  did say that she took into consideration mr called letters statements as well as the documentation submitted on the case if you look at the documentation by itself not necessarily mr c coded cutler's report as well even the human rights report the most recent one in the case that there is still police impunity and corruption in armenia so that's what i mean by it was not a full individualized analysis as required by the circuit what are the standards for the idea and i suppose indirectly in the day or qualifying someone as an in quotes expert i believe they could take i apologize i would have to look that up and i will reserve that for rebuttal if i may your honor if you want to say some of your time you don't get in the act on the yes then i believe yes your honor thank you very much but with respect to the record show that mr maher daniel wasn't buying are by former officials or police operating under down after the velvet revolution i believe that is correct your honor the religion occurred in april of twenty eight team the prime minister was removed a new one was put into place as acting and then they got the elections occurred i believe in been following the conditions in the country since he left in two thousand and eighteen and then the new government has taken control and again it was a party that he did support so there was apparently some changeover between the parties that point in time when the election actually occurred in december the new prime minister the new government took over power and that is when the government leaves as the change conditions well we we've had a number of cases in our court involving people from the job and india where suddenly the prime minister and the game  seemed and we still had all kind of problems lie don't see much difference between that and this it gets rough not rough not by the very same people that were ripping him up before the velvet revolution was not very valid would be from his perspective again the board's analysis said things change you know moving forward which is what we want to look at here that the party that was in charge that caused these issues for him i get that i get that well that doesn't is a month or two afterwards whatever happened six months down the sort of time surely be your honor and mr cochran of course en route and my clear in understanding that the revolution occurred in may but are you saying that  newly elected party did not go into iraq and killed december but the revolution occurred in the april two thousand eight hundred timeframe where the prime minister was or move in there was an acting prime minister was installed at that point in time argument that he was an oligarchy he still had power or whatever it may be there was never any testimony or any evidence for mr daniels showing that to be the case all there is is that what happened to him in the past and then you know the country report talking about being a former member of parliament and the current new post up it revolution administration beginning these investigations of prosecute corruption so that was the options it was before the agency ok but in my guess my question is after the revolution and then the prime minister was install right around then as judge smith said in a of two thousand and eighteen her being in was picked up by the police exactly and you agree with that right yes i believe that is a true statement yes aren't and are sorry what are you saying is that it wasn't until december of two thousand and eighteen that the actual carding was installed and began cleaning up th and i mean when are you saying this corruption started getting cleaned up i believe a sort of getting cleaned up pose velvet revolution but it wasn't like just i don't really it wasn't just flipping a switch you know there were there was a lot of corruption some still remains in the media as the country report recount the best evidence the government has on that does come from the country report regarding his previous persecutors the republican party won mr put goes into we're no longer in power and that the government the party that mr party has supported one hundred and seventy point four two percent of the vote and eighty eight parliamentary seats i don't know how many are actually meeting in parliament to give you a percentage of that and the new government launched these investigations to prosecute not an individualized analysis of the the republican party it was voted out in the election ok feared mr p goes ian who was member of parliament he also was voted out they also look to see ok people they were involved in this government corruption that he was fearing the new government was  regarding what my opposing counsel stated the individuals that are heads again i would just like to reiterate of the police department and s s and the prosecutor's office remained in power from the prior republican party regime in armenia  regarding expert testimony your honor basically to be a recently in a decision held and essentially there is no uniform rigid process for qualifying an expert in immigration proceedings and the immigration judge has broad discretion to conduct and control immigration proceedings and admit and consider relevant and probative evidence this court the th circuit the closest i found on point is us vs hanky from two thousand stating that police be experts was found to be reliable and admitted as an expert because of his years of experience with gangs now basically in this case the judge stated that mr cotler did have knowledge about the soviet republics and had many years of expertise in that area however based on current events she found that he is not an expert but his years and years of experience with the soviet republics and what is going on as well as his reading of current how the former soviet republics especially are mean you know where it's the politics in it how long it takes for a change to come about and how changes have been brought about in the past as well as his knowledge of the individuals who remained in power and what is going on today based on rd party sources of course which experts can rely on his prior experience informed his expert opinion on what today whether or not there is a well founded fear of future persecution and all of that prior experience and publications and his background and expertise is very helpful to inform the court which may not be as much of an expert on armenia as to whether or not there is really a substantial change of the well founded fear of future persecution whether it's been rebutted the presumption where there's no longer and percent chance if we believe your allegations and your claims on appeal does the idea even need the testimony of the air we're going or to get a revenge or remain