reopen in front of the immigration judge and granted that first motion to reopen was denied for an error of law which is not an issue here in the case today mr get out and filed a motion to reconsider which  all that decision is very brief it's difficult to review in a way it was written in the actually it was a one page prepared form that the immigration court uses and then in the margin of the decision the judge made a hand written not evidentiary material that support that changed the position that there was a change in country circumstances in looking through the material that was in the record all i thought was the asylum application itself which is required to be attached and then a letter from the pastor in a news article explaining how they had adequate evidence sherry basis for the immigration judge to say that there's new evidence a very brief paragraph supports his claim change country circumstances there's a very general statements about there's a jihad there's obviously change after suppose a member of a particular social group but it's another even if you do want to put it under the religion portion it is a new factor related to his religion and your development within the country because the american invasion and gender anti american sentiments in jordan and because of that he had heard that christians and americans were being targeted in jordan since that happened and again his asylum application did refer back to i think he said in the past reprisals and again this was filed in april of two thousand and three and it was fairly new and it needed to have a lot of independent corroborating evidence but then when this went up into the motion to reconsider the government did therefore in the congo in the situation that was going on which was still found that he still developing he had that fear and it was at that time when the motion was denied high burden in order to show that he now had a well founded fear of future persecution in jordan based on changed conditions in jordan his haven't simply does not support that as the court noted the most he can the most he can provide or did provide was a few very conclusory statements in his asylum application i think the documentary evidence that was appended to that motion bears absolutely  actually no relationship or very little relationship whatsoever to his personal plight were the plight of christians in jordan in general and i think looking at the statements that he has need in that in that application it scope of that your honor his statements about why that happened or how that happened or not only date but they're internally inconsistent at one point he says page eighty nine of the record that his mother's store was  has been ordered by the government of jordan to close her store which is clearly and an order by the government and then the next if you want to read implications i suppose the next the only inference at page ninety three i'm quoting her story has been closed first of all the immigration judge determined that he didn't establish a prima fascia case for for asylum which is one of the grounds on which to deny me opening and then the immigration judge decision notes that he failed to persuade the judge to reopen in his discretion and then the judge and that information which i think petitioners finally did to sort of underlying supporting aspects rather than i think what is what is usually sustained by the record which is determination of the evidence offered by responding to is not established that country conditions of jordan have changed sufficiently or at all so as to placed reality in danger of religious persecution cash especially especially in based upon conditions that have changed in jordan indeed the i j a says simply but i think appropriately that he didn't establish that the country conditions have changed at all and i think that that's true he makes a application even what church you belong to so the judges accepted this characterization and then said this is registered whether or not and i think the term hound is clearly a term of art but i think that it makes clear you are not in danger of being harmed based upon your religion and your affiliation with this church assuming i add assuming that you're affiliated with this particular number of counsel i and following up on judge burton's question would you concede that if a person was going back to a country in which he or she was going to be hounded and persecuted by  and that the official position of the government was anti vigilante but in point of fact the government was not able to protect people against vigilantes that that would be sufficient to shield the motion to reopen and that case were before this court question would be did he come forward with sufficient evidence supported by affidavits and other evidence to warrant reopening and the rest should be within the discretion of the government but this isn't the problem if changed and i think that is clearly borne out by international religious freedom report which is really apart from these totally nonspecific statements by the petitioner that is the strongest evidence of record the date of that was two thousand and two but i add and i think this is critical i am that there is not a numerical limitation on the car on this kind of motion in other words if conditions in jordan really have changed record but i i dare say that he's not going to find religious freedom report from the state department that supports his claim and and so this is a tension or who came for the interview with very little if any evidence showing what he was required to show and the judge's decision you know perhaps was not as well articulated or as extensively articulated as the court or even we would would like but i think it's immigration judge still found that he didn't meet his burden and so rather than finding that this is an abuse of discretion i think it goes the other way which is the immigration judge gave him more than he deserved with respect to evidence that wasn't even present and so i think that i think in the case like this where he could and i think it's best stated like this if the petitioner is required to come forward with evidence showing that the conditions in this country changed  that people in this situation in this case christians now these persecution and he has a well founded fear of persecution based around he should be required at the very least to come forward evidence that that bad things happened to people in his who ordered you know who threatened her or ordered her it's so vague as to be now in evidence it's not her but if of change country conditions which is the only or the the critical question in before the immigration judge and the critical international religious freedom report there's no indication the one in the record and he's not conforming any worse that any christians have been harmed and that is directly conflicting with and i think that it would show what i mean they say there are no reports instance where it's not accompanied by a full written decision explaining the judge's reasons for denying motion three open i don't recall ever seeing it appearing by itself and i think this is on a case right seen a judge and the tape and written out in the margin this case the judge did not really sufficiently explained his decision or or indicate that he had considered all the factors especially the anti americanism and again with his short short reference to the church being registered it was addressed in the reason for this court the church is not registered as a church to society if we are going to go down that road of the knowledge in the judge gave credence to the statement that was made in the motion to reopen mr her dad and doesn't fear just the jordanian government he fears the muslim population at large he states in several places that it is i think a percentage of between ninety five and ninety percent muslim in the country and unofficial or perhaps official depending on how you look at it jihad has been declared i read it in the context of the population declaring that she had not the government however the government for it he's afraid will not do anything to protect him in the face of this jihad t twenty fourth was the date of the motion of two thousand two thousand and three and then an agent placed march twentieth of two thousand and three and it did refer back to events in the last month leading up to the invasion so about two months thereafter usual if there is any issue about any document in a discussion