whether during the fifteen year period from two thousand and one to two thousand and fifteen there was a material change in country conditions in indonesia regarding the treatment of chinese christians we have the court to vacate the board of immigration appeals to page decision for two reasons st we believe that the board did not meaningfully address much of the petitioners evidence regarding change country conditions and nd we believe that to the extent that the board did address such evidence the board's decision is irrational and not supported by sufficient reasoning in our brief we have documented an increasing and extremely prevalent trend regarding abundant changes in the fifteen year period from two thousand and one to two thousand and fifteen council can i interrupt you for a moment like you to address this question please has your client presented sufficient evidence that she herself set aside the country conditions for a moment not merely her family members or christians generally would be persecuted  indonesia your brief did not go into much detail on that point yes your honor we believe she has prevented sufficient evidence as you're aware the th circuit's disfavored group analysis allows for a petitioner to submit evidence of personal targeting in conjunction with country conditions evidence and the greater the evidence of group targeting the lesser the threshold of individualized targeting nonetheless are still need to be sought yes you're right and she submitted evidence that members of her family obviously she's been in the country for thirty years at this point  but the targeting of her family members with whom she would reside if she returned to indonesia we believe is directly relevant out especially in light of the fact that one of her immediate well at the time meet relatives would be appropriate but her brother was directly threatened by supporters of the islamic state and she's documented other attacks on numerous members of her family which would be really if i could let me ask you to address what i think is the bone of contention here our case our opinion in so lame came down after the b a decision in this case correct yes or the government says saline isn't controlling so since they're going to say that i'd like to hear what your argument about why you think saline controls in this case were at least requires that we send it back to be to address the importance of solely yes your i one thing i would like to note is that some of these issues regarding individual targeting would be more relevant to if the board had denied based on a lack of prima fascia showing of eligibility they could turn your day they could reopen and still turn you down if the radical yes right but that was not the basis of the decision the basis of the decision was no change country conditions which i believe i erroneous under any standard given that it's a fifteen year period of deteriorating and well in c i think in the absence of our decision in saline you might have a hard argument but we have a decision that says country conditions change based on for indonesian christians based on rough way the same evidence the government seems to think it's not exactly on point or distinguishable so address that for me please yes you are all i would say our case is actually stronger than saleman that we're covering a greater period of changes in the brief we do address the similarities between the declaration submitted by sole aim and the declaration submitted in our case and again it was a lot of targeting of family members which was deemed to be relevant towards the issue of individual eyes targeting so i do believe that this case falls would you address that one yes your honor i believe it's distinguishable for three reasons or two reasons and then i also know that it is unpublished as you've said i want to go to death and this one is that it's covering a shorter period of time two thousand and three to two thousand and eleven the other reason i can't say whether or not it is distinguishable but each motion to reopen would be decided on the individual facts so to decide whether or not this case would be governed by lee he would have to really look at the different records and a different level of individual targeting to decide whether or not that threshold for just a  met i don't know exactly all of the evidence that was submitted in that case so i can't say whether or not i believe the petitioner in that case should have prevailed given the change country conditions but given that you're dealing with a shorter period of time which in that case was cut off at two thousand and eleven the four years after that are significant in terms of raising the level of group targeting so i do believe our petitioner would have a lower threshold of individualized targeting again i don't want to speculate as to whether or not the petitioner and lee did or did not submit sufficient evidence and it was i'm also interested in what it is you find i don't think we can find it they must read open or we can do is tell them to reconsider their decision not to reopen we can grant the petition and tell them to look at the case again in light of subsequent authority i would can order them to reopen can you know i would agree with that your honor but i think the the grounds for the denial change country conditions i think is squarely before the court and i do believe that should be vacated and if that's vacated the current board decision does not provide an alternative basis for continuing to deny the motion it's certainly possible the board could look at it again and say we don't think there's a prima fascia case or they could come up with some other reason i suppose but what we're addressing today is the grounds of the board to deny and which is the lack of change country conditions what's your what's the strongest  changes in country conditions you think are the best or some of them are and are decided in the board decision ironically i think the presence of islamic state supporters in these i think anybody would consider that a material change i think the application of sharia law in parts of  indonesia would be a significant change the trends in terms of statistics of people that support radical forms of islam as a port as opposed to more moderate forms of islamic i think those would be material some of the incidents of terrorism that were discussed in the brief these are all the things but those would be the  and number by this is the nd time the petitioner has filed a motion to reopen with the board can you cut to the chase and talk about saline please sure you have a specific question your honor tell me what that case does to your case if anything why did why doesn't control here it seems like the facts are nearly identical and in that case they found that there was sufficient change in country conditions to merit reopening so as you know the regulation controlling here details that what we're looking at with the board must look at is a change in circumstances in the country of nationality and that involves a comparative analysis between two points in time if i didn't do exactly that analysis over roughly the same time period they were talking about in this case and conclude that the board had erred in finding that country conditions hadn't  changed that panel may have been wrong but we don't get to revisit that so why is your case different so it's the st part of what you said your honor that roughly the same period of time i would i would respectfully disagree the times there i think it was the time period and  twenty two thousand and thirteen here we're looking at two thousand and one to two thousand and fifteen so so they found that between six and thirteen country conditions had changed that that period falls within the period that this petitioners art is talking about and i don't see any evidence of improvement in country nations between thirteen and fifteen so i ask again why doesn't it control because again your honor we're looking at two points in time so the beginning point in time i think still i mean to extent that what you say is true i'm not quite sure how that compels us to find that when there was a change in circumstance found by our court in two thousand and six to two thousand and thirteen how that would affect our decision in determining whether or not there was a change in country conditions from two thousand and one to two thousand and fifteen well i think there's this to answer to that st the the because that's what psyllium said so if if so lame isn't to apply to this case then it seems to me we either have to start from the premise that country conditions were better or worse in two thousand and one i don't know which which when you're contending or got better after fifteen is there any evidence in this record of any of that i think there is evidence that they were worse in two thousand and one worse than they were in two thousand and six well that that is not of course the the board couldn't do that comparative analysis or couldn't do that but we don't know but we do know that if you compare two thousand and six to two thousand and thirteen country conditions got significantly worse and so what you or whether you think they got better between two thousand and thirteen and fifteen if you in the absence of that so lame controls right well one of the points that council made i think as well in the absence of country conditions having gotten better between one  and six or thirteen and fifteen so in controls yes i would suggest that this the distinction and there may or may not be one is bit counsel said and i believe he is right that every case is different right and so what we're talking about the evidence in the record there was reviewed in it and i think you're honoring now is that you know that court may have got it wrong right so i think the court there was speaking in particular to the evidence in the record between two points in time so we're talking about different evidence in the record in different points in time so i don't think it's an automatic your honor and then look it may not be automatic we may have to send it back to them and say we've got this case that you didn't know about when you decided this case it seems to us to be quite instructive in control and you didn't have the benefit of it and we want to send it back to you and if you can look at the record again in light of this case which are why that's not the appropriate procedure well i just i just think it comes back again and i'm sorry to be redundant but it comes back to what the regulations say about a change change in circumstances you're really talking about two points you have individualized risk right that is also a point that we have obviously got to here as your friend points out the country conditions thing is really separate from individualized risk isn't it they didn't turn down this motion to reopen because this petition here didn't show individualized risk they turned it down because she had demonstrated a change in country conditions i guess i would i would respectfully disagree a little bit i think they're both were being analyzed your honor the individualized risk was was notably distinguishable from celine because what you have here is no individualized risk it's not just that the petitioner lives in the united states because that is what happened in saline two but you had was you had enough of david from a family member which you do not have here and that after the it from the family member was talking about a particular start of violence at the church that the family attends and failure of intervention by the police you do not have anything here such as that in fact the incidents noted by by petitioner while certainly one that nobody would want to experience are not there is no indication that they i was just saying that is different than celine where again that the court was talking about it becoming more particular becoming more personalized because of what was happening to her sister over there in the threat of violence that the family had a family church so i think we all can agree that each case is its own case has its own facts and it would be wrong to make a blanket conclusion from salines that anyone who is a christian in indonesia should have their petition  it doesn't sending it back allow allow the border of the day to take a look and see and allow the parties to introduce whatever additional evidence they might have to either distinguish saline or so that saline controls because right now as i read saline and don't have the record there's only one real fact that's different and that was mentioned in your in the briefing that celine had converted from buddhism to christianity but that really is not a helpful fact one way or the other that doesn't move move the dialogue to the right conclusion agreed well i think that was significant because what they were saying is the board failed to  the st prong as described in the case law requires a quality of change and what the cordon swing was saying this this individual circumstances entirely changed you know it's a different nature of the claim yes i'm sorry there is no i don't have another quick ok but i just think that it we are talking about two considerations individualize risk along with the country conditions within the country conditions you're talking about two different points in time i do think that there is if you if you revisit the particular decision from the th two thousand and three decision they talk about some some very bad stuff that is happening to christians in indonesia so that is different and like to clarify one point when we talk about each case being decided on the facts of the case i was referring more to what would be the case if we were looking at the prima fascia claim and if that was the grounds for the trial i think it's important to keep the two issues separate here there's a separate grounds of denying a motion to reopen if the petitioner had failed to make a prima fascia case for asylum and i believe there the board probably would have done a much more further inquiry into whether or not her evidence of individualized targeting would be sufficient to establish that prima fascia claim the board only the individualized evidence in this case in terms of considering whether or not there was a material change in the country conditions so there you are looking at the individualized evidence in conjunction with this change country conditions evidence and given the drastic increase between two hundred two thousand and fifteen i think you submitted more than enough evidence to meet her burden in that regard the the responses get into service use of whether or not conditions could have changed from two thousand and one to two thousand and six such that selene could be distinguished but i think as the court has noted that's not something the board has addressed and that might even be a novel issue of whether or not conditions can change and change back and what effect that would have on an untimely motion to reopen whether or not they would be sort of a due diligence requirement to file within the st change of the nd change i'm not sure but indonesians as well as the immigration judge stating that conditions in indonesia quoted certainly the situation got better after may have nine hundred and ninety eight it didn't get worse so part of their decision in the original case was that the petitioners asylum application was untimely because she didn't file within a reasonable time within a reasonable period after the may one thousand nine hundred and eight riots so they were looking out and saying ok these riots were serious but conditions have been steadily improving from one thousand nine hundred and eighty to two thousand and one therefore she didn't file her asylum application on time so to now come back and say somehow they were improving from one thousand nine hundred to two thousand and one but they've changed again from two thousand once he doesn't six it gets very convoluted and i don't think that's i'm not sure the board would say that but if that would be something they would have to say in the st instance but i'm not sure how they could there would be a lot of changes basically they'd have to lay out maybe three or four different changes in directions and they usually don't get that specific but again the board didn't really address any of this and for our purposes we're sort of fixed on the two points of two thousand and one to two thousand and fifteen given saline which i do think is controlling showing a material change in a much shorter period within our period i think it's clear that arena and would be appropriate basis for remaining saline was also