first we have a fair trial then we hang him said judge roy bean in texas back in one thousand century compare this with our own judge in this case who said verbatim to mr o has on the first time he met she met him in the court without a lawyer and a master here and she said the beta so i want to tell you so that you don't have any false hope that is that you are going to be deported after your hearing even if you prove that you said even if you prove what you said to the asylum officer do you understand that and he says hearing evidence before deciding a case and we supposed to let the asylum seeker say their piece tell us their stories before we get to this judgement of you're going to be denied no matter what he said and whatever you prove i urge your honour's to send a strong message especially in today's environment that a foregone conclusion than  times he was told to answer yes or no to questions that don't call for yes or no answers especially to direct examination not even allowed to ask yes or no questions and direct examination yet the judge that he says yes or no trying to tell her why i moved why i was afraid to stay in this location you know i didn't see any or brief your indication of what information your client would have wanted to put on that he was prevented from being put on the only indication i recall is that the attorney decided not to have one witness testify who he agreed would be cumulative was there information that your client wanted to present that he was prevented from doing so appreciate the questions as a couter one thing you got to understand that he was not allowed to say or did not let me back up for a second i was there the whole setting was so hostile that we could have shown why i moved to a different town by allowing him to explain why he moved how long he stayed while he relocated again those issues were not really flushed out because she insisted on yes or no answer the wife would testified sorry the partner of the time wife now was also treated the same way look you're not answering the question so we could have shown a lot by proving why he moved to different places so that's one thing that you were not able to flush out and we would have shown then answer the question so the main piece of information was the motivation for them and that's where the judge would not have it just that a judge said she was looking at that procreation are not going to pay to do it or anything like that did not say that did not say that but just the demeanor the hostility that she has shown the prejudgment of the application is really what was in my view affected the outcome of that case so we could deal with it on a don't over review based on a due process violation and if the court wants to continue on and go to the facts of the case which really also would clearly show that he suffered past persecution and if i may get to that when we turn to the facts of this case has reported drug dealing by a drug known a drug dealer rana who was using children to run the drugs to buyers children as old as mr o has kids and that's really what prompted him to report only to police officers knew of his identity his name he had no enemies he had no trouble with anyone else in peru for months later a civil patrol he went to a different town an hour and a half away to his parents home and for eight months he used different routes different cars to get to his factory job and then they caught up with him he was shot six times lucky he survived and what's the information this is what i understood the idea to be concerned about what's the information i can access the drive by shooting stopped so there was some confusion with the timeline so so they stopped when he moved in march twenty fourth you know did he still get threats he kept coming frats but not maybe not much him what can we make out of that if he doesn't know these people they're making my asking about his whereabouts and about him and then the shooting happens so even that's the connection happens in september right sho and so the i j a was saying there is what can acts are there isn't anything that can x this this shooting in september to what had happened with the police so long ago and in  october and this is where the judge goes wrong she failed to know that the cost kept coming and people were asking about him that's the connection that the judge completely ignored and the b i agree  may please the court again i'm laurie we're like here on behalf of the united states attorney general the general respondent the course of deny this petition forward view because mr pressure has not established to a single isolated incident and then much later he was shot at we should be careful not to say he was shot he was shot at but he was not injured from anything like that apparently the only injury was when he started to get from the incident which is it does not mean to minimize what he experienced as just that the way the law is written those do not necessary they don't really that would not make a substantial evidence case for this the shooting was the extra actually to speak that that was the extra but the point is that it can't be connected and let me ask you this so he had tells a story if they he reported this drug dealing to the of the government should come up with a if there's circumstantial evidence supporting the story the government should have at least an equally plausible explanation so i didn't see the government having and a plausible explanation of the sequence of events in the briefing it is there was i don't believe that they advanced one yet but the point was that it was very clear that of course he reasonable to relate that back to his report of the drug dealing well it could be that could be a possible explanation for it but it's not so what we're talking about the actual evidence but what's an equally plausible explanation for that series of events my first thought when he didn't recognize anyone in the car he didn't recognize the car itself they never said anything to him and my first thought was well what if they thought you were someone else what if this was a gang initiation what if this was let's shoot someone a stranger on the street or what if there's a lot of what ifs that you can put forward and fortunately i mean a person like i said i don't mean to minimize his experiences but the point is wouldn't the credibility finding does not quite get mr potter has far as he would like he the immigration judge found him credible which is important when we're talking about this alleged due process violation she despite all the issues with testimony despite how many times she had to admonish him to actually answer the question and not go meandering down and to stuff that happened many years ago that wasn't relevant the immigration judge found him credible she included in her credibility that he did not know who shot him that he did not know how they got his phone number that she said i don't know if ronna saw me in the car when they did the show up identification it could have seen him then it doesn't mean that the police gave him the number but it gave this this drug deal with a number of course it could have been but the point is that that's all speculative and even my theories that i put forward that's all speculation as well because there's no evidence of any of it there's no evidence to point to one or the other the government's explanation of why he was shot at was it was a random that's not  i would say that the government is trying to put i'm not trying to put forward a conclusive explanation i'm just saying that when you don't know who shot you they didn't say anything you didn't recognize them and it was limited to six to eight months after the close of the you have to about the issue in montreal we sent it back so the government could write but in that to show some other plausible explanation for what happened i guess the court found that the evidence didn't but they didn't find that there was any decide if the evidence compels the conclusion contrary to what the agency reached and respectfully it doesn't because moderate all the years a military officer in the mexican army his face was shown on national television the the there was far more concrete evidence of the connection between the the threats and the harm than in this case so the speculation in this case is far greater than it was in madrid and  the in this case the the length of time between the single report that he made to the police and we should be careful not to care to characterize this as he's all this drug cartel using children plural throughout this in this for in a pervasive manner in this town he he may have that's not what he testified about he said he saw it one time and it bothered him as it should and he went and told law enforcement about it and he tried to remain anonymous but we're not sure if if they knew who he was because of his it's like celery roll in with law enforcement  and a year later again there were threats that were made against him approx one one months for one month approximately four months after this report but it was a year later and it seems like  he's relying on that he moved to this different town where his parents lived and people were asking about him but they again they were not threatening him as he admitted as he conceded and the stranger in a strange town usually gets asked about so it's  it's doesn't necessarily support the point and again we're looking at the totality of the circumstances and all these pieces put together and whether it compels a conclusion different than what the agency reached before i run out of time i did want to point out that yes the immigration judge as i explained was turks and at times probably impatient about the court the supreme courts are already explained in like i think it was pronounced that  a due process violation of course i would say that the points that this immigration judge was saying was within the bounds of her attempt to keep the courtroom running on schedule she's on detained docket and when but this year came in and was not following her instructions about giving a full date including the year at the first reference to a date about answering the yes or no question with a yes or no but contrary to the indication given by  petitioner she didn't say yes or no and that's it she said give a yes or no answer and that there's a follow up necessary your client your attorney will do that he was counseled and she even i would point out that she even at one point there was a moment when he gave the incorrect date of the course of events which might have led to the board's inadvertent reference to the years being off and she and the d a s attorney wanted to mention that wanted to go down that hole and immigration said think that was just an ink misstatement of the us attorney she also explained that she only wanted to understand everything in context and she needed the time line to be clear and concise and him to answer the question so she could understand his claim she also  invited his counsel to return and ask more questions after she gave her series of questions invited him to do a redirect he didn't take it i don't believe and when mr potter houses then partner now wife testified she understand it we became upset while discussing this this experience that her husband it endured and at the conclusion of it i mean this is certainly not conclusive evidence but of the underlying merits of the case but about the judge's attitude that she gave gave her to show i mean she was not intending to be unkind or prejudicial to this case instead was the possibly trying to run her courtroom efficiently so what that i asked the court to deny the thank you so i've been doing this for twenty six years i've been before many judges so great and not so greatest and i have never ever heard a judge say you can i get denied you're going to be deported so being impatient is one thing and we understand that judges are busy but to have a predisposed intentions to deny or asylum is not acceptable and i have never seen it in twenty six years of the judge have before when she said that had she read that she had record oh perfect question she was disputing the finding of credible fear that asylum officer has determined now we entrust most of the most of the grants of asylum in this great country to the asylum officers and this judge said i don't buy it right off the bat that is also an indication of her predisposition you know honor as to the one here everybody talks about one here they look at this one year in isolation it wasn't in isolation this one year past with incidents connected to the threats to looking for him to shooting magic god is right on point she says an attempt the magical court specifically said that murder attempt rises to the level of past persecution assault flattening life itself constitute persecution what happened to that principle and i don't know why this government is a completely god sorry i'm out thank you thank you counsel we appreciate your arguments in this case interesting case and the matter is submitted