or tortured if returned to Guatemala due to his desertion from the army. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Although Ramos-Orella-na argues that the agency improperly discredited his evidence of country conditions and placed excessive reliance on the U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in Guatemala (“Country Reports”), the task of resolving conflicts in the record evidence lies “largely within the discretion of the agency.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mulcasey, 546 F.3d 138, 171 (2d Cir.2008). In evaluating Ramos-Orellana’s evidence of country conditions, the agency reasonably noted that the more recent Country Reports do not indicate that former army deserters are targeted for persecution or death. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 164 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). Lastly,
recognizing that a report from the state department is usually the best available source of information on country conditions holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala holding that in evaluating evidence of changed country conditions the bia compares the evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below holding state department country report on fairness of liberian judicial system admissible