points first as a matter of mootness i think it is well established that departure from the country does not move to challenge to a final order of remove all so long as there are collateral consequences here the relevant collateral consequence in this case is that this is a second removal point the court towards its decision in heywood versus ice that's three seventy two federal appendix one twenty two that's a case where an immigration petitioner had been had already been removed the court went ahead and decided the case in fact in in our case mr forth say it had diligently participated in this appeal filed briefs filed motions basically and right until the eve of his departure in the haywood case i think there was actually less participation nonetheless the this court said we reject the government's arguments that the petition is moot because he would is not participating in the appeal and could not be notified of a decision in his favor so i think this they would decision it is important precedent in this regard in terms of this court has as previously said it will go ahead and decide an appeal even when the petitioner who has been removed is no longer in contact with the court or with coun think again this goes to the point your honor made about the difference between jurisdiction as a matter and you know a discretionary determination of whether the case should go forward and i think the extent you view this in terms of noncompliance with an order of the court  the question is really is dismissal a sanction and i think there are a few reasons why it shouldn't be here first i think the testimony in the record is that mr forsyth did not know where he would go in jamaica did not have family did not have a place to stay and was basically on the run and so i think the court should lightly assume that mr forsyth is willfully flouting in order of this court very well may not be able to comply because he may not have a fixed address  the second point i would make your honor again in this discretionary balancing of of what if anything should be the sanction for not providing an updated address is that briefing on this case was complete mr forsyth was removed in january the government did not inform this court that that had happened this court went ahead with the case that appointed counsel counsel myself had trouble finding petitioner and only then did it come to light so i think the fact that the government he has been removed in and in general there are collateral consequences to an order for move all that does not move the case so i think the question simply comes down to shoot should the strong medicine of the dismissal of this appeal as a discretionary matter be imposed because mr forsyth did not provide an updated address i think in this case there's clear evidence in the record that there may very well may be extenuating circumstances an explanation for why he has been unable to do that the government has not sought this is a remedy or is a sanction against mr forsyth and in this courts he would decision the court has not treated the absence of a petitioner or even his non advisory opinion to someone who is no longer interested in and it may not be the case but if if he has a firm a deadly abandon and has no longer any interest in the appeal it would be in the right you or i think the q word in your think if there is any uncertainty about mr forsyth interest in this case i think what you can look at is the fact that he does have a live stake if you want to apply for readmission ten fifteen years down the line and this case is still out there on the books where the court this court looked at a number of indicia of understanding in society that that individual was an informant and was there was persecuted on the ground the court identified threats and identified multiple attacks  the exact same thing happened here mr forsyth was attacked on multiple occasions he was essentially run out of the country with the police saying they would not be able to protect him and your honor the  not consider this a particular social group i think think the court needs to look at the evidence in the record about the specific social context in jamaica there's articles about quote unquote informer phobia this idea of informal feed dad informant  is dead that is in the popular music even so i think that is an important aspect of this case as well here i would make one further point on the cat issue just very quickly in the time that i have targeting mr forsyth or informing on the gang's criminal activities that's in the record at page five so essentially what the b a a did was it said you don't get cat relief unless you can prove police involvement that is not the standard the standard is acquiescence and i think the record is clear exactly the standard is is if if a public official acquiesces in the torture of an individual that meets the standard for protection under the cat just simply applied the wrong standard under the correct standard mr forsyth was told by a detective to rant i can't protect you so the one person in jamaica who was trying to protect him basically said get out of the country i can't see view from the people d morning your honors in may please the court attorney seventy two f leo on behalf of the united states attorney general i think what's in what's abundantly clear is this court as as directed counsel to to to to argue today is whether or not there really has been affirmative abandonment by petition in this particular case and i think what is specifically delineates this case from a number of other cases that are at least the case cited by petition this particular situation with regard to hayward is specifically here  not only was his stay of removal did now so he understood at that particular time that the likelihood of his removal was imminent but also that this court understanding the very nature of the denial of  to this partition or to continue to update this court with his address and contact information in order to adequately and accurately pursue his particular claims i would also add that in january twenty third of twenty seventeen on the eve of his removal petitioner in this particular case filed a motion to expedite appeal in light of this particular pending removal as it were in  response to that this court effectively denied that motion to expedite on the same day petition and was in fact removed to jamaica for this particular search for this particular situation so i would also add with regard to the inability of petitioner now having been removed to jamaica not being able to update the court as instructed by this court i actually have contacted as indicated in my letter to this particular court of last week that whether or not any further forwarding address was provided to ice or any additional information i guess we have a petition who was fully aware some six months prior believe it was august of two thousand and sixteen in which the motion for  or i would also add that he was removed to jamaica jamaica for all intents and purposes he has the ability to communicate via telephone the internet etc this is a situation in which he was aptly able to communicate his whereabouts with this particular court with regard to his prosecution of this case and i would i would and i would add and there's a litany of cases it's been primarily p primarily emanating from the district court but also being ruled on by the second circuit in these particular situations that litigants must comply with court orders and i would i would invite this court's attention to second one hundred three which says all litigants including pro se have an obligation to comply with court orders there's also a litany of cases emanating obviously from many time mostly from from the district court that says even though we provide this solicitor to this holding of hands of pro se litigants they are still bound to by could not only court orders but to actively participate in their that a geisha and for this particular petition to effectively have been removed to his home of nativity and citizenship he was not transported i think is opposing counsel would would like us to believe  to a nation that he he is unaware of unaware of the whereabouts has no points of contact there clearly does its nation of the nativity and citizenship and for him not to have any communication with this particular court going on ten months now despite not only my investigation or my inquiry but i'm assuming counsel diligently opposing counsel diligently attempted to contact petitioner whether the evidence in the record or otherwise with regard to this particular alien and this particular alley ineffectively has abandoned his claim before the score and i think this court recognized that with regard to this court's issuance of its order approximately ten days ago where is why should we consider this case where he has effectively abandoned and this is a situation where i would i would ask that this court need not go further that this case as this court has recognized effectively abandoned removal which was denied at that particular time he understood that removal was imminent at that particular time while remaining in detention while he could have notified whether or not family within seventy two hours this court denied it and that pretty and i don't i don't speak for the government as far as whether or not our intention was to oppose it i can all i can honestly say that within seventy two hours that motion order was denied by this court denying motion on one twenty six motion to expedite filed on behalf of petitioner one twenty three so within seventy two hours so whether or not we were gathering our thoughts of what no to that particular time i was not on the on the case but i can i can i can speak that based upon the record and what is before this particular court is that he was aware understood that he was being removed and despite that effectively abandoned he's praying that he was aware that it was going to be removed the fact that he made a motion to expedite our proceedings suggested that he knew how to be in touch with the court and to have this court consider is claims and that we should take this is your argument we should take from his lack of communication sense than that he's abandoned a belief in this petition your adversary says that we shouldn't take that because it's your burden to show that it's moot that it's been abandoned it's not enough to take from from the fact that he has not been in touch for ten months that he's abandoned his claims i thought well i think in this particular situation in light of the court's order we are in a situation where what has petitioner done and i think it's recognizable based upon the he's done nothing for ten months despite efforts on on the part that this court directed government council to do which i did and despite efforts on the part of opposing counsel to do that so you have a situation where ten months have transpired since his last communicate with this particular court and there has been nothing it's an easy situation to contact this court to let this court know what you were about are he clearly was aware of the situation he clearly understood as as brother counsel indicated he did file a brief he also filed a motion for an extension to file a reply brief so we are dealing with the individual and i understand the lay nature of pro se individuals that understood the very nature of these proceedings and he being able to do such once he's returned to jamaica again his country of nativity and citizenship not some third country that he's unaware of the customs the language it's true that the going around of it cetera i would add that that is critical to his particular case with regard to his whereabouts now and where he's been and i think this court did and outstanding job of kind of identifying that for us and saying well we really are you're on route counsel where is this individual being he has violated a court order that was issued in conjunction with the denial of the motion to stay now five if there are no further questions on the abandonment claim if i may briefly speak to with regard to the denial of withholding and i think what is really what is remarkably important here is that we need to really focus  on in order to have a clear probability of withholding any fear of persecution violence has to be on account of or based upon a one of certain grounds or protected ground one of these particular grounds or particular social groups and as the board common immutable characteristic is it the final particularity and this is a particular social group distinct i would present before this court that it's clear from the record evidence that he is not defined for number one he's waived any arguing with regard to finding of a common immutable characteristic that alone is fatal to his claim to satisfy all three quote unquote elements and i would say that the specific nature of his claim the particular social group of non criminal and if i may be known criminal informants in jamaica simply does not satisfy that heavy burden i would also invite this court's attention to the risk respect that the we are the standard of review here is substantial evidence that is the record evidence compel the contrary conclusion as i indicated common immutable characteristic is weighed that alone effectively defeats his withholding claim in any event the reliance on gashly is completely different other witnesses were harassed tear gas to fire bomb that cetera so i would say it's clearly the facts of that particular case a clear distinct and just to add one moment and i apologize i'm over my time for one minute and i apologize to this to this to the with respect to catholic think a clear reading of the immigration judges reading the decisions together the immigration judge's decision in the board's decision it is clear that he did not satisfy the more likely than not seen the for the convention against torture i' nine when seventy six mr forsyte testifies that he has no where to go he doesn't know where he could go and on top of that everywhere he is he was literally chased from corner to corner of the country the last time he was there running for his life so so i think again i did not hear my friend dispute that the government here has the burden to establish mutinous are banned in men and i think it is really speculation that there has been a willful violation of this court's order or abandonment given all of the record evidence  suggesting that that mr force a very well may not have a fixed address that he could have provided to this court the second my friend says that this court did an outstanding job of identifying this issue for us i think that's a critical point the government knew in january that mr forsyth had been removed this court didn't know i did not know when i was appointed by this court and at that point it had been almost six months and certainly the government could have informed this court your honor i think that this petition has been abandoned we think that that he just chose not to go forward and on top of that there's been a violation of the court order the government did not do that until and my friends words this court identified the issue and i think as long as we're we're in the realm of abandonment and not moodiness which i don't think my friend challenges this court has to make a discretionary determination and i think the fact that the government did not identify this issue for the court  heavily in that balance i would add one further factor in that regard again if this court regards it as a discretionary issue of what to do about a potential violation of an order of the court in the gravel men of this case is did the b i  but i'll answer your honor's question with remission i think if you were to choose to remain for another hearing that i think the issue the issue may very well then come to a head i will certainly undertake to inform  and and the question of his participation at that stage is presented i also don't think remained is necessary i think you know the evidence there are there are legal errors here there is a legal error in terms of the application of the particular social group  order and if that's the case whether or not mr forsyth finds out about it immediately if he decides in ten fifteen years to apply for readmission the fact of removal of his removal will benefit him he has a stake in that