conditions in Kazakhstan that materially affect their eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Add. at 45-48. The Petitioners do not contest the factual characterization in the denial, that their failure to register stated reason for with the consulate the revocation of is the Kazak citizenship. However, revocation of citizenship is ultimately a unilateral action by the government, and the BIA provides no reasoning as to why such a unilateral government action would not constitute a change of country conditions. The BIA is required to consider credible and specific evidence that a government action constitutes is pretextual persecution based and on a ultimately protected ground. Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128 (2d. Cir. 2005). Even if the BIA finds that revocation of citizenship does not constitute persecution, it is still required to analyze whether, as Petitioners allege, they are now at risk of persecution because 28