please the court i represent i'm sorry oh the petitioner here and the alien we are here because of an adverse ruling below that is that mr torrey elves motion to reopen on grounds of change country conditions  like in the philippines did not state sufficient change grounds or many things conditions in the country to warrant for the hearing before the immigration judge the reason for the petition is that all the evidence before the board of immigration appeals indicated that there was change the country conditions and therefore there was no substantial evidence to support the denial the standard of review here is abuse of discretion the ninth circuit just last thursday had occasion in the case of or donors of the immigration and naturalization service to restate the two million rule with regard to motions to reopen on the grounds of change the documents submitted to the board of immigration appeal not only demonstrate change country conditions in general but also change country conditions with regard to the drug trade is the torrijos nexus to the silence that should not previously resolve was not a drug trade in the philippines was that your point i'll take it and you will note that the motion below only talks about change country conditions which from the time that this court previously decided problem that you've already established or the court has already established which is the lack of a connection to a political motive and i went through the supplemental information where is it what makes this political what solves the problem your hon pointed the court to the case of washington mercantile association v williams which held very clearly that speech that's seven thirty outspoken perceived to be outspoken regard to this issue here as you mention a factor of first the decision of the previous panel which that it wasn't political ok i'm on ninety two history international reporting two thousand one nuisance the court's decision now those are general coffee conditions which i his house or his garage or something like that yes but the major difficulty is of course when it is not part of one's duties as a police officer by the way to get involved in argument putting change country conventions aside anything happened here quiet which would amount of persecution that wasn't in front of the prior panel now your case relies upon the fact that the conditions in the country have been worse yes raising what the prospect that there's an increased risk of future process of persecution if they were returned and a wellspring if i may use that word of illegal drug trade which corrupt the body politic and that's that's his petition to send him back and he's going to get a bullet in his head because he's outspoken on the subject of drugs now the government did not introduce country reports from the department of state or any of the numerous materials one would think they have available to show that this is just so much make like they didn't do that it's a state of the evidence before the board of immigration appeals and the persecution and in a well founded fear of persecution based on his political opinion being in the military that has nothing to do with at do sayaf what i've read the additional material to argue does not reference that particular claim it does not reference military members who quote unquote are outspoken spoken about procedures in the military exactly the kind of information you would expect if in fact someone wanted to point to the to the difficulties caused by the increase difficulties posed by the drug trade in the philippines it is material mr calio comes before this court i'm going to use the discretion standard