of el salvador he's been in the united states since he was twelve and he was a member of the m s thirteen gang from the ages of seventeen to twenty one the most important point or one of the most important points of this case is that in two thousand he was convicted of two charges health and safety code eleven three five a and one one three five one point five and the theory is whether he qualifies for federal first offender relief and i believe that under this court's precedent in a villa sense you know rojas versus lynch that he should qualify for the relief and  convicted of violating a federal or state law related to controlled substances and that's that i think the important language is he's never really offended after those too convictions that are done on the same day have the same exact sentence so i believe thank you qualifies based on the text of the statute and based on this court's precedent both cases were expunged so the way the statute is reading i believe that he should be eligible for the federal first offender or leave county you don't have a lot of time and there's a there's one argument i wan have you focus on a little bit yes one of your arguments is that because of your client's tattoos right if he is sent back to his home his home country was once upon a time his country the government official see those tattoos and torture believe when i read the b i order i did not seem to be i actually addressed that specific argument first is that your contention that a b a did not discuss that our guests so than this and that's certainly a question we have for government counsel then the second question i have for you is that was that argument the tattoos will lead to government torture effectively the cat claim i want to call it was that specific argument made t you'd have another shot but i think you have to make it to be i e for us to get to that result so i will i will check trained by the us government he changed then family name was changed to avoid harm to the petitioner so i don't think that the board is correct in saying that there is no nexus there in addition the board says that there's no nexus between the m s thirteen membership and the harm he would suffer which i think is wrong in the records replete with evidence of people who've been sent back and one very very important point is for two very important points to respond it was found credible and he's noted that he provided the name of the killer to the detectives and then was placed in protective custody it would seem that this would be a more meet the more likely than not standard that he would  because his father was in the el salvadorian military and was sought after and had to leave el salvador he would be harmed as being as being the son and it would be a way to get back at his father but he lived ten years with his mother after his father left and suffered no harm well changed his name he didn't change his name but here's the point now he would be being removed to el salvador and he's being removed to a different el salvador now a much more violent el salvador and he would be coming to the attention of the authorities and gang members having been removed to el salvador as a m s thirteen member yes he would live there as a young child with with a change of name but he would be a much higher profile person going back  this is likely to come out the other point that he did want to address concerns the the torture and as you noted judge owens render him removal from the united states and in algebra for expanding treatment under the federal first offenders act whereas here as the judge has noted that his conviction is for possession for sale is more serious offense than simple possession that take four of the controlled substances act which such korth simple possession of a controlled substance this court has held that possession for sale and that the statute constitutes a drug trafficking offense an aggravated felony w because your father contends that the doctor was judicata bars the lodging of the new charges however he has not shown that he was subject to a final education on the merits of his  that he has established a nexus based on his kinship to his father however he has not shown that he was harmed or threatened with harm based on that relationship to his father additionally petitioner and his mother and his siblings were able to reside in i noted that he again there is no particular as risk of torture where he had not shown that anybody had threatened to harm him account of his former gang membership or is alleged actions as an informant since his release from tortures gang members or that they deny them due process of law accordingly substantial evidence that record supports the agency's decision if there are no further questions your honor so what would be adequate evidence for him to have brought forth he's been here i think for a long time he's had the two convictions and then has had no problems he's run his own business he's got all these tattoos and i would have to say in the contemporary environment m s thirteen certainly is something that has prominence and if he's a member of m s thirteen or a former member in order to get to the standard you're talking about he didn't show what how does he show that he's given the record in this case with about the countries that are involved and there's a sixteen year old child m s thirteen that w sent back and was murdered two weeks later what's this individual supposed to show to meet the test you're talking about well for it to share to warrant eligibility for withholding a cat michaud that's more likely than not that he would be harmed on his return as i as the agency noted he has not shown that anyone has expressed an interest in him in the last ten to fifteen years the brief but why isn't that enough to leave but that issue before this court just really doesn't cite any evidence in the record supporting that claim but the question is is that the question is whether the b i addressed the argument and we go back to the beginning the question was he made the are going to be a maybe it's a lousy argument maybe it's a loser but i don't think the b i actually addressed it and so if that's the case then aren't we obligated then to send it back as long as their issues were fairly presented to us i believe that the believe and like specifically i don't believe that i just as we broke it down by participants but they did address his fear  at pages forty nine fifty fifty three and fifty four again notes that petitioner hasn't indicated that anyone was interested and harming him based on his former met gang membership but that's different than like again that's different than what judge fisher is talking about he's talking about how evidence to show that the likelihood of torture but did they specifically say by the government as far as you know no one not by the party not specific parties and they also argue want to just around three minutes extensive notice of appeal the there is a discussion of the tattoos as well so i believe that this was raised to the  on page twenty one the argument that you discussed is under cancellation of removal and then the next page which is section d is relief under the convention against torture and i didn't see the tattoo argument made under the for the cat claim i saw it made for cancellation ruvell maybe ultimately doesn't matter maybe there's authority saying it's it's in the next in the next but i just want to be clear if so i mean the to be a  is perhaps not the best organized but but it's the way it's set up as it says withholding every move all and then it goes through the testimony and then there's a final argument at the end