immigration appeals subsequent affirm and said that decision this is silent case a case brought by mr warsaw me pro se is fundamentally a political opinion case it's a political opinion case that the immigration judge on her own converted into a case that hinged on the applicant's particular social group which of course the immigration judge defined to a sponsor in a way that was doomed to fail this court should vacate and remand for the proceedings for at least two reasons number one the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals fail to acknowledge that mr r some is pro government pro education anti al shabaab advocacy was a central and indeed an essential reason for the death threats harassment and torture that he suffered at the hands of al shabaab and number two the evidence in the record demonstrates that mr maher saw me suffer persecution because of his membership in a particular social group defined not by his chosen profession but by his family relationships or kinship ties as a threshold matter this record the record in this case is replete with evidence of past persecution the evidence of death threats targeting harassment and terrible torture was found to be credible by the immigration judge and is therefore taken as established fact for purposes of this appeal where the immigration judge erred was in failing to see the clear link between the cumulative violence and persistent death threats that mr  suffered and the protected ground that motivated those acts of violence namely mr sammy's political opinion the immigration judge refused to acknowledge or perhaps even recognize that mr marson his political opinion was at least one central for the abuse he suffered at the hands of al shabaab mr war some as political pinions made him a target a target of harassment death threats and violence the evidence on this point is both abundant and found throughout the record i that the i j a then that be i misconstrued his political opinion arguments as social group arguments you wanted the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals just failed to acknowledge that his political advocacy is ideology was political opinion instead the immigration judge focused on his chosen profession that being a teacher of course his choice to be a teacher as the record demonstrates was simply an expression of that  his platform as a teacher to spread his pro government pro education anti al shabaab ideology and they contacted him say something about his political opinion yes your honor they did  every time that they did something do it he gave a public speech or a seminar condemning al shabaab and al shabaab would contact him make death threats and in many instances mention the fact that he had made and statements that he's  other she's me they killed his father least that's what he said that is correct that is one of the incidents that demonstrates that al shabaab was targeting mr r saw me well i'm sorry he didn't his father wasn't killed that was actually a point that he had to clarify during the hearing his daughter another  relative passed away from that from that two thousand and seven bombing that's correct his his his daughter and his sister were both killed in that attack in his father was gravely wounded and that was no random act of violence either despite the characterization by the government that this was some sort of random criminal element the evidence in the record shows that he was targeted even before that and received death threats prior to that two thousand and seven bombing that were directed to him specifically al shabaab called him and said we're going to kill you and your father so they linked the two together and made death threats prior to that bombing the argument is that he was targeted for two reasons one his kinship ties with his father and to his own independent political views is that correct attributed that political opinion to him so the political pain we would contend includes both the imputed political opinion and his actual and outspoken advocacy i think the government has said that since the children apparently were also targets of plenty of evidence in the record to suggest that he was targeted because of his father that there are numerous incidents in the record where restore some he testified that he was threatened by them in fact that two thousand and fourteen torture that he endured was in his words quote because of my father they had been looking for his father who was a prominent federal police officer and they oftentimes target the family members of those police officers as well so they recognized him they captured him they tortured him by burning his genitalia and he only escaped that because a clan leader who learned that he was being tortured in this house intervened on his behalf and convinced them to let him go and what is what are the cases that support the the qualification for asylum based on targeting because of a family member going to this circuit has not actually defined particular social group in terms of kinship ties there is however thirty years board of immigration appeals precedent starting with the matter of a cost to that demonstrates that family relationships kinship ties have been a valid basis for defining a particular social group this court in fact indeed has rebus earlier this year seemed to acknowledge perhaps and victims they certainly didn't as this court did not decide this issue but seem to acknowledge that the family basis for the particular social group in that case could have supported a claim for persecution on the kind of a protected ground you'll probably also recall from that case that noted that apparently the d o j is currently considering the question of whether familial ties can constitute a social group are you aware of whether the weather do is announce any that at this point as of our recent check a few days ago no you are there hasn't been any announcement on that decision nor does the fact that the attorney general referred the matter to itself i believe give grounds for this court to stay its consideration in this case family ties have been a basis for defining a particular social group for like i said more than thirty years i guess one reason i'm asking you whether a nd reason a nd independent reason for this persecution whether you've argued that his his own political views have been a factor is because i don't think there's any dispute about whether someone's political views would qualify as a basis for asylum whereas there are at least some  to the family ties wouldn't you be better off focusing on if you believe it's true mr sammy's own political opinions as a reason that he is being targeted absolutely i which is why i started with that political opinion that he himself the spouse his and ideology the record indicates that he was a public figure he that he was had a reputation among his colleagues an anti al shabaab advocate and that he was targeted because of his work educating the youth and speaking out against al shabaab again that the death threats would resume every time that he gave one of these public speeches or seminars condemning al shabaab in his board of immigration appeals brief he described the threats that he received from a as originating from the fact that he was quote spreading the anti al shabaab opinion through his teachings and that is why this case this war sami case is very much like it should be controlled by this court's two thousand and eight decision and the santa maria versus united states attorney general in the december re a case this court concluded quote with little difficulty that the record compelled a finding of past persecution based on political opinion in santa maria the asylum application was an outspoken critic santa maria as life was repeatedly threatened by members of the fark and they told her that she would be killed if she didn't stop her pro government advocacy work the same is true here mr karzai was threatened by al shabaab every time he spoke out against them each time as santa maria  advocacy the threats would resume similarly miss santa maria was it was kidnapped by the fark tortured beaten and told to be killed in a remote far camp she was only freed from that when the colombian military intervened and and set her free by tortured told he would be killed because of that work and in both cases in the santa maria case and in this case the asylum applicants were found to be credible by the immigration judge in santa maria this court corrected the immigration judge determination that there was no put persecution on account of a protected political ground and held that taken together the incidents of violence that  extreme mistreatment that qualified as past persecution the same result should obtain here the i i j decide that your client could safely relocate within this same country honor that that was a determination by the immigration judge that again it's contrary to the evidence in the case the country reports that the immigration judge actually pointed to as supporting this this notion that he could relocate safely say the opposite they actually say that al shabaab had a pervasive reach throughout the country and that's a quote from this country which throughout the country that they've changed governments they've got a new president or something like that was as of two thousand and twelve and again the fact that there was a turnover in the government the fact that the united states is being called on to help try to stabilize that government and economy is actually more evidence that it was an unstable and unsafe place for mr or somebody relocated his families in another place and they've not been attacked right away your honor that the evidence on that is actually unclear missed or somebody didn't know where his family was he believed that some of his family had made it to a kenyan refugee camp he did not know where his wife and daughters were but it's important to note here it is wife and daughters are members of the majority clan and the evidence in the record does suggest in fact clearly states that as a member of the majority clan it was much easier for them to move around and seek protection from those majority clan leaders from al shabaab if it was his father in law who was a member of the majority clan that according to mr was testimony gave him money and told him that his best option was to leave that's exactly right your honor in fact that's the reason he left his wife and children was to go seek an education so that he could perhaps make a better life for his entire family to take his his wife and children with them but it was his father in law who said you need to leave you're the you're the reason that these this threat has has fallen upon our family mr awad thank you very much you save your time for  please the court rachel browning for the respondent the record evidence in this case does not compel the sole conclusion that petitioner met his burden of establishing a well founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground the only issue that's been preserved for review is that of the imputed political opinion based on his relationship with his father petitioner to the extent that he seeks to reframe his claim as one of an actual political opinion related to him being a teacher or a new cognisable or new a particular social group based on kinship ties neither of those claims were presented to the immigration judge nor to the board and his appeal whenever he was asked about who came up with the definition for the social group or the protected group the judge discerned that to be his particular social group based on his written statement that he provided along with his asylum application in wh said that he was targeted based on his membership in a particular social group of somalia teachers whose activities were strongly opposed by al shabaab that's how he flipped framed his bill that particular social grouping but that's not how the i j a framed it right she framed it somewhat always contours because the way you just described from his own filings suggests that the teaching is part of it but it's also the message of being anti  right and the way the i j a framed it was had nothing to do with al shabaab it was just that he was a teacher who was teaching the western way with western values because that's what he's also heard here a difference right but that's what he that's what his statements were that's not all of his statements though he did he would despite inconsistencies in his testimony and despite the i j a saying at times that he had lied the i j a found him to be credible right correct and he testified that at least in part that he was targeted by al shabaab because of his opposition to that group did he not that was part of his testimony but he also shabaab targets anybody who is opposed to their group they target civilians they target government workers that's why his father was targeted it doesn't matter though but if he's to say that he's going to be singled out if you're an if you are part of if you are part of eight group who is targeted in a country because of political opinion and your group is big because there are a lot of people who share that political opinion the size of that group doesn't mean you can't qualify for asylum somebody because of what they believe aren't they taking action against someone because those people believe the opposite and oppose them but if you follow this court's reasoning and sanchez and this is the supreme court and just because you're opposed to something that a group stands for doesn't mean that the group computes to you a political opinion that it's an expression of political opinions is more about it next as a group exerting power and control in this case territory so they don't want people to ching western education because that undermines their control they don't want police going after their criminal activity because that threatens their control it's about al shabaab and when you look at this cumulative civilly there's simply not enough on this record to establish that one petitioner returns to somalia that he will be singled out for persecution on account of a protected ground he was merely and you really you really believe that in light of i think when you l soccer his family suffered a missile attack which killed two members of his family severely injured his father who was a federal police officer because they were told police station of course they attacked the police station because that's where they lived the housing was on top of the police station it's not like the police station was here and the place they lived was a mile away and they attacked  police station i just think you're drawing lines that are way too fine the police station was the home because the police station was the st level and the hold was the  level of the structure and i'm no expert on guided missile systems but if you're attacking with a missile you're going to hit the building you think that you think you can comfortably say that if he goes back to somalia he's not in danger of being persecuted because of his political opinion i'm simply saying that the protected ground has not been established i'm i'm not comfortable at all with anybody going to  going to pretend like it's a safe place i'm just trying to explain the basis for the judge's decision and the board's decision and the way petitioner framed his claim was if you go back to going all the way back to his credible fear interview i didn't have any particular opinions or political beliefs i was attacked because of my father's position my family is in a political opinion he says in his deck or ration and that al shabaab targets everyone against them and of also in his declaration they target civilians based on their view that anyone who does not refuses to support there is three malicious abuses against them i'm saying that cumulatively only the judge found that there is indiscriminate violence brought about by  dangerous but that because of the new government and assistance of the us government and international partners in the region they are they have been successful in taking back territory there are places that he could return safely to the j or the b i really consider whether there are places consider the evidence that he offered that he could not return safely to any location in somalia your honor honestly the evidence on this point is vague because yes there's enter clan  violence and based on the clan that he identified himself before the board there's nothing specific to that in the record the record the documents that he provided really speak to the more generalized violence there been multiple bombings of various places and so over the last ten years and that's all represented in the in the record but there's simply not enough specific to petitioner i think is what the judge and the board the conclusion that they came to you know credited the initial statements he made for example at the credible fear over the testimony he provided at the hearing i think from my perspective be in a stronger position but that's not what the where the i j a decides that a person is not credible either in whole or in part right this is not one of those cases we also have cases where the alleged persecution as bad as it may be to someone in a civilized society doesn't rise to the level that's required to obtain asylum in this case i don't know from my perspective this is a rare case where the i j a found as for an asylum claim i think it's akin to the types of claims like this court address think osteo where you have a group of people going against a criminal organization in that case it was a drug organization in this case it's also bob and the reason for the poor persecution again has more to do with the organization itself than the people going against them and trying to it's about control not about a specific political opinion but a drug organization doesn't necessarily have an ideology except money whereas al shabaab is sort of a different sort of animal right because it is also concerned about power and money and control but also has a pretty powerful moral social religious ideology does it not that's true your honor but that doesn't change the the way the claim is weighed itself it doesn't change that still the political opinion has to be that of the victim and not the persecut r the fact that also bob as is an ideological bent i don't think that changes the calculus didn't for the judge in the board and and so that's why they came to the conclusion that they did  but again should the court disagree number one i want to point out you were going on about the past persecution the board didn't actually address whether the harm that petitioners suffered rose to the level of past persecution and so should the court determined that that's a necessary finding that case should be would need to go back to the board to address that in the st instance the board decided the case solely on on the nexus ground that his social group was a cognizable and that he had an established imputed political opinion was a reason for the persecution  and do you think that imputed political and political opinion would be sufficient if it were i think there just needs to be more evidence of that it's again it was i just said setting aside the facts of this case would you say in another case where imputed political opinion were clearly demonstrated that that would be sufficient to establish that element and i think it's pronounced sorry sunday has rigorous you were talking about family members of someone who sought to criminal justice against a drug organization and in that case it was framing it as a as a particular social group so but it's similar because it had more to do with the drug organization than the group itself and the group was being defined solely by its  likelihood that it would be targeted by the organization and what about purely the question of kinship ties and i go in again and another case set aside from the facts of this case if it was established that a person was persecuted because of their ties to their family member would that be sufficient generally speaking yes i mean the board has recognised kinship ties it's a bit up in the air at the moment but it's it's possible and the court did consider that question and sunday os and found that there was no way to frame the group even if it's a family without the distinguishing characteristic being the risk of persecution and so i think you would run into that same problem here if the court were to get that far but again that's really something that the board should address in the st instance since it did not and really didn't have any reason to because what do you argued to the board was the same things that he argued before the i g in terms of how he framed the  his claim so the question really is should the board have gleaned something different you know based on what what he argued but he was he was pretty specific and pretty clear  was a very lengthy brief and so i think the board looked at the evidence presented in the reef and what the judge just said and and affirmed on those grounds the frame of the group exactly like the i j a or the your friend at the way he presented it in his brief ok which was a little bit different than what the i g had done it was a modification you're a bit but basically the same contours of his being targeted as a teacher what was the basis on which  civilian government has managed to take back territory there's also evidence in the record indicating the u n that the government is working with the u n high commissioner for refugees on helping return displaced persons and returning refugees  that was the fact that the government has not been one hundred percent successful is not what's required but it's that they are making strides is the fact that some people can go back and to show that a petition or a can go back i think they look at the record as a whole again on this the evidence that petitioner submitted himself there was sufficient evidence to see to think that he could find a place to relocate does it matter in that relocation analysis that regardless of whether or not he can meet the requirements for asylum he's been targeted before by a certain group like al sh if he hasn't established past persecution on account of a protected ground it's his burden to establish that there's nowhere safe for him to relocate right but but there's no there's it's one thing to say he has not met the asylum requirements for the reasons you've given it's quite another thing to say that the events that he endured which the i j a found credible shouldn't be taken into account  looking at the relocation issue you understand what i'm saying that yes but again i mean those events even if those events don't get you to asylum how are they relevant if at all in the relocation analysis the relocation analysis i think there still has to be evidence that you would be singled out that there's no way you could relocate if you hadn't met that burden initially then the relocation argument really doesn't come into play i think the judge was just sort of giving an alternative finding or an alternative  reason for denial ok thank you very much ink you requested no you want to stay was not requested he had been in detention for two years had recently received news that his father's health was failing and so he decided not to fight any removal should it come during th t the appeal here and he was removed i think it was june of last year and he did ask us to continue with this case he is we have been in touch with him subsequently and he has actually held out hope that the case will be resolved before he was removed but but he has been removed and i actually his current whereabouts are unknown you want i want to point out just a couple of things that we know is in somalia as of april he was he was he had reunited with his his wife and daughters and was trying to get them back to the kenyan refugee camp  or other members of his family had been for several years your own i want to know one thing briefly we described in our brief the striking parallels between this case and this court's prior decision into santa maria the government chose not to respond to that argument in their response brief and they haven't mentioned it here today the dishonorably a case is remarkably similar it's about political opinion and based on its protection under this almost based on persecution because of a political opinion so i just wanted to point that out the the other point your honor judge jordan mentioned that the persecutors ideology is a factor here this is not some criminal element that we're talking about that is motivated by money this is  is an ideological terrorist organization that sought out targeted mr sami specifically from well before two thousand and seven on up through two thousand and fifteen when he was finally convinced that he could no longer live safely in the country finally there the issue of whether he could relocate the government seems to have stated that it was a matter of whether al shabaab controlled parts of the country that is not the right standard it's whether he would be persecuted if he went back to certain parts of the country even if  facto government and certain small pockets of the country the country reports that a record evidence here make clear that their reach was countrywide so he could he was facing a threat of persecution and perhaps death should he go back and as far as the burden is concerned the burden only shifts to mr saw me to prove that he was unable to relocate if the government meets their burden st in other words once we've proven the past persecution on account of a protected ground here political opinion that burden shift to the government to show that that it was reasonable that he could relocate there without it without a threat the government put on no evidence to that effect in fact the immigration judge was so effective in her advocacy under the government's part that when she asked the government if they had any questions their response was no questions your honor the immigration judge simply did her job for there are no further questions thank you thank you mr watt and behalf of the of the court i want to thank you in the right we're in recess until tomorrow morning