time for christians an ethnic chinese indonesian like mr ten steps also and which has been recognised by sri sinister circuits and the district court of massachusetts second the agency regulation was interpreted correctly failure to include an application isn't fatal to the motion as the da has recognized in its own interpretation of the regulation in a matter of the a while was that the score should not have there isn't any doubt is that some of those islands are in fact predominantly christian right i'm not sure as to the specific christians to go see them my point is if if the concern is that your client would you know would face difficult on bearable circumstances in indonesia which i have i have no doubt that that is true about many parts of indonesia and i'm willing to accept that for the argument for the sake of argument would you not agree that if you accept if you accept my proposition for the sake of argument that there are which are predominantly or overwhelmingly catholic doesn't that make a difference where he repatriated to indonesia presumably he would wish to go to one of those islands rather than the islands where he might be safe hostility while you all know that i don't think it would make a difference simply because the blasphemy law for example is something that is something that was done by the government so it doesn't matter where he lives frankly because if he is accused of blasphemy for a for any minor stayman he risks conviction in addition to just fearing violence from mobs or people that wish to attack question and that's an important point here we're looking at the record evidence that indicates that there was a rise an increase in intensity of the condition when i would do if you seemed to begin with  respond to just two arguments and then if this court has any questions for me i will respond to those very quickly with regard to to his argument that he was not required to file a fresh application for asylum with his motion to reopen and the reason he gives for it is that that you can somehow file a motion to reopen that goes back to the  doings and the statute specifically says you know that there is no time limit for filing a motion to reopen if the basis of the motion is to apply for relief in the form of asylum or withholding and the same thing is true within the regulations which also state that the time with patients don't apply when someone is seeking to file a motion to reopen to apply or reapply the determination as if you if an individual is seeking change to country conditions is arguing change contradictions they are application for asylum and all they're doing is now coming in with one ask for that application it says that one of the bases for design my application before has changed completely new applications and the couple is a living right it's not the same old outlets not the same application the previous application may very well have been and this would often be the case may have been for some different set of circumstances some different identification remember the petitioner here originally filed an asylum application that was untimely and in before the immigration judge the st time around attempted to argue that that asylum application should be permitted to go forward because of change country conditions then and as a result you know that that is how i want occasionally go forward the petitioner couldn't out with a new application be arguing different conditions and we'll be arguing it on the basis of a new set of facts that support looking application again it does it's not an application to return an individual back to say there are so i don't claim back in one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine or two or march of two thousand and one is the petitioners case maybe in addition there's another reason why you would want to do that and that is you don't want to have individuals who file asylum applications to file it to to seek reopening and then once they have reopening go and rely on some other form of relief or seek some other you know procedure you want to have them pinned down on the specific application in which they filed and as a result you have a regulation that specifically requires them to file the application now it's not entirely mandatory right as your one dos and held that if the government joins in the application and the and the board in that case was very narrow and said that it was acting in a very very narrow fashion that in that circumstance the application may be forego and you can understand you can consider other circumstances in which the time and number limitations can be avoided as well say for example you have the individual file the claim that they are in quite entitled to equitable tolling on their original application because their attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in that case they are going back to the original application and they're saying that it was wrongly and in the st instance but when it comes to the new application when you are seeking change country conditions and you're attempting to avoid the time bar what you're doing is you're filing a forward looking a and in that circumstance you need to apply and you need to provide the application to the agency competition or didn't and as a result you know that was sufficient grounds for the board to deny the application for one of the other grounds with  violence right you had thousands of people die you had over five thousand individuals forcibly converted from christianity to you know to islam and you had widespread church bombings including one in it's impacting the christians all of which may be easily explained as not a change in in terms with the decisions but they aren't explained by this opinion is a change of country divisions they're not they're not addressed at all is attending to these particular facts it just doesn't find them to be sufficiently compelling and sufficiently i guess what to reveal a sophist such as sufficient material change in country conditions that it would reopen the case and the board is given a great deal of discretion to make that determination i believe there's enough here from what the board says that this court can look at it and see that they did consider this and so the board isn't required to go expressly parser refute each and every specific aspect of the petitioners evidence which wasn't a very significant evidentiary packet to begin with two in substance to news articles the state department's international freedom report and the united states commission the united states commission on international religious freedom freedom report and all of those are very brief there wasn't much for the board to dig into conditions the legal basis for the case has not changed he still arguing persecution based on his christianity and cheney that's misleading and we have to follow the rule against surplus age and give each word of the statue the fact the government in its brief argues that then that all applications all motions to reopen must contain an application police and that's not true but even if we are required to submit an application for relief this is a case where mr thompson told where that he has he never insisted on including an application in previous motions to reopen filed in