by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, inter alia, a “fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality” or the reasonable possibility of internal relocation within the country of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 1208.16(b)(l)(i)-(ii). The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s finding that assuming, arguendo, that petitioners had suffered past persecution, they no longer had a well-founded fear of future persecution because conditions in El Salvador had fundamentally changed. The agency reasonably found that the government had met its burden of establishing a fundamental change in circumstances. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). A U.S. Department of State report in the
holding that 8 cfr  10032c3ii applies to changed country conditions in the country of origin or deportation and not changed personal circumstances in the united states holding that in the asylum context the bia must provide an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioners situation citation and internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that conditions in el salvador have materially changed and that the increase in general criminal violence does not lend support to an asylum claim holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported by allegedly unavailable evidence regarding changed country conditions where there had been a previous adverse credibility finding in the underlying asylum hearing holding that the bia has a duty to explicitly consider country conditions evidence that materially bears on his claim