everybody deserves that their name pronounced correctly the clearing that she could not be with another man in branded her near her genitals to mark or forever that holding this plane the incorrect second b i l s rejection of the claim under the convention against torture rests on only one sentence that contains no reasoning points to no facts and does not even adopt the flawed reasoning of the i j a third when an intervening change in legal standards affects how a party would try its case remain and specifically is appropriate and happy to discuss those cases but at bottom the thinking behind them is when the legal standard has changed and not only affects the arguments that the parties will present but could it could affect the evidence very submissions as well about what exactly a b does or does not do but one thing that's clear is that they are c g e as a presidential matter has been overruled and so that's that's the basis that we're saying it would be appropriate to remains to the i j a so that the parties could each make their submissions both arguments and evidence in light of that in the the qadri case from the first circuit the case from this court or all cases where there was an intervening change in the legal standard and the court of appeals did not apply that new standard to the facts didn't tell the i a e a to do so the rather remitted to the b i a with instruction stream and to the i j a right but it's separately it has these other reasons right and you have to show that you have the great deferential standard for to talk about the standards that apply there those cases that we cited for the proposition that remain to the i j a is appropriate do not hinge on a predicate finding by the court that the change in law was favorable or that the petitioner could definitely s we don't actually know which standard the b i a n e i j applied in this case a but now we have a clarification of the standard and it's appropriate to send it back to the i j a it didn't say let's first determine whether he would succeed under the old standard and they didn't say this is change in under our binding case law regardless because of her going back after when she's had the conviction is not right isn't she barred under our case law so there are so there were three claims that she brought briefs and i won't focus on it today but we have a separate argument that you may never less be able to pursue a clatter of fact when the reinstated removal order was improperly provided there but i won't dwell on that we don't allow that just on the nexus holding and to briefly review what that holding was the i a e a endorsed the view that persecution was centrally motivated only by retribution after see up a suit boning up for child support and depending on what the b i m meant by that it was either legal really in which a group of people was initially kidnapped in mistreated for an unprotected ground while in detention the perpetrators realised that they disagreed with the political views of one of the people they held that person longer and mistreated him or severely in this court said even though the initial reason for the persecution was unprotected at some point there was a central reason that was protected and that's enough as a factual matter if the b i a meant that the child support suit was but he is only central motivation for each and every instance of persecution both initially and subsequently then that conclusion is belied by the record bunny as words and actions reflected his belief grounded in and cultural norms that so you as a woman in a domestic relationship had no right to leave that relationship bunny a brain to turn your genitals to mark her forever he told her while raping her that she could not be with another man otherwise he would kill her he told her that she had no rights in the context of saying that she couldn't be with another man in the nature of his intimate sexual violence and possessory conduct including at least three rapes branding and all of the  things we've discussed here plainly reveal that his central motivation at least a central motivation was to keep her trapped in this sexual relationship plainly reveal that's c there was not substantial evidence supporting it here the only thing that the b i i said was that bunny it was centrally motivated only by the child support suit what we have to show as a legal matter is that a central reason not the only reason not even necessarily the initial reason but that the a central reason for the persecution was a protective ground and we think that we've done that it's implausible to think that keeping trapped in a sexual relationship was not a central reason for this conduct and i will just mention briefly that i think it's a bit of a false dichotomy that the b ira had between the child support order on the one hand and the projector ground on the other hand if there is any reason that the child support suit irked bunia it was that it was a public an explicit and permanent declaration by sue that she was attempting to leave that relationship in any event if he was motivated simply by financial retribution for the fact that she was seeking this money from him you might expect him to have robbed her or to have countersued or something like that but instead what he did was set out on this course of conduct that by its nature demonstrates his motivation but we also have the benefit of his expressive words saying that she had no rights that she could not be with another man that he was branding her again to quintessential conduct that would be motivated by that sort of a concern the other claim that i'd like to discuss today is the claim under the convention against torture and there we have two basic arguments for why the b i l s treatment of that issue was wrong the first of those arguments is that the b i e s reasoning was inadequate as a matter of law to be i e has to provide its reasoning with clarity so that a court is not compelled to guess at the theory that underlies its decision that's from the  piece of evidence and did not even adopt the i j a reasoning b i i cannot adequately in jude adjudicate an entire claim simply by copying and pasting a one sentence boilerplate description of the legal standard in similar circumstances case which we also cite that's from the fourth circuit was a case where there was a two sentence section of the opinion that addressed the cap claim in that opinion to be i said we agree with the i j a that the respondent has failed to establish and th apologies here are even if to be reasoning was how do you have adopted digests reasoning on the acquiescence point that reasoning is flawed what the i j a said was that the honduran government was attempting to take action against funding including because the police intervened to stop farm one time but the fact that the police showed up one time and declined to help actually shows that they were consciously choosing not to intervene they were deliberately choosing not to intervene well it wasn't didn't they put him list or something that the rest of the issue is is a complete red herring am i wrong on that that that that they put him on some kind of dangerous people yes that is in the record that he was there was a red alert out for him it's not really explained exactly what that means that is in the record neither the i j a nor the b i relied on that that was just something that the government mentioned and it is in the record but that's a complete red herring it has nothing to do see of this case nothing to do with domestic violence in fact it predated the whole situation with city opera it only came to light when she went to the police station to complain about the domestic violence they told her oh there's a red alert out but we're not going to help you so it's neither here nor there the fact that the police showed up that one time only had told the police not to but in because this was between couples the officer said he was going to detain him and he was going to confiscate his weapon and in fact briefly took it away but then ultimately bonnie in place of a phone call the officer then gets a phone call and they hand the gun back and walk away that is acquiescence in addition she filed complaints with the police and with the domestic violence agency and she got no help there counsel what do we do if with the numerous it was assumed by the way it's not challenged here by the government that's something that could be addressed for example if you were to remain to the i j a for further proceedings that could be addressed there but the case as we presented it at the i j a level at a level is based error c g and they are c g right lies as a presidential matter that women who are unable to leave a domestic relationship because of these cultural and societal norms and the government protection is a is persuasive authority authority so if you don't think it's persuasive of the authority then that would not affect the cat claim they were presenting that without a fact the question of whether the nexus holding under a or c g was wrong if you did reach the a b a issues  which neither party is urging you to do but if you did reach that then it could influence how you address that statute doesn't apply i certainly don't think it's i would not agree that it's straightforward which is all the case and the fact i think it's the least straightforward way to resolve the case if that's the proper way to put it the government is not even in the alternative defending the merits of the order  reconsideration which is where they the issue came to light in this case the if you look at the grace case as we discussed in our twenty eight a letter the government's arguments and the d c opinion are inconsistent with the interpretations of a b that are involved in the second order here where they're telling with the with the implementation order in that case not actually be and be itself i think the the grace to sit decision involved a b itself as an injunction and things are regarding the implementation order as i understand it the challenge in grace and also the injunction and grace pertain to two things both the a b decision and the policy guidance memo that implements the i are addressed by judge sullivan's injunction and certainly a b is construed in the context of this very detailed opinion thank you thank you appeal which will be reviewed for substantial evidence and if there were any legal issues to novo subject to deference and then a subsequent june two thousand eight hundred decision denying a motion to reconsider which will be reviewed if at all solely for means that she cannot pursue asylum however she could after she was referred to the immigration judge pursue withholding of removal under the i and i and protection under the cat regulations she saw both and she recounted how she had been harmed by  whom she lived for about two years and with whom she had a child she had done to fight her particular social group as women in honduras in a domestic relationship who were unable to leave the immigration and judge inboard deny the withholding removal application without doubting or without casting any doubt on the cognize ability of this group however i did find that there was did not have this her membership in such a connected to the suit for child support she testified that she did not have problems during the two year relationship when she came to believe she was seeing another woman she returned to her parents with their child he had no problem with this she testified it was only a few weeks or months later she sued for child support and very shortly thereafter began receiving started as harassment and eventually escalated but its constant reference to you can't this is you can't sue me for child support because i'm not going to go along with this even from the very earliest days up to what appears to be the last chronological event which was another again another earthquake sexual assault but bernie is own friends don't see the point i'm saying that you're at least there's no record evidence compelling a contrary conclusion if that does not in the illustrate tony is motive ok then with then that piece of testimony wouldn't be relevant to it but there's no testimony that would compel a finding contrary to the board here about what his motive was what if he had multiple motives well if he had multiple motives if she had testified he had multiple motives the board would have been called on to an out analyze whether each was a central reason gonzales releases brief to the board never argued the immigration judge was required to conduct a mixed mode of analysis without such an argument she can argue here although she attempts to that agency urged by failing to conduct a mixed mo analysis so for that we believe the denial of the holding of removal should survive review because there is evidence or there is no evidence compelling a finding contrary to the board as to the cat protection again the immigration judge on board denied the application for failure to show that there was a hundred government acquiescence in the torture she does not the gentleman is politically connected or something like that well her own testimony is that she was totally speculating as to the point she did not know and don't need her to tell us why he had to step back from enforcing the law after someone called him an authority well also at that point on i don't believe he was involved in any i believe that point was still in the harassment stage i'm not sure he was actually i don't see the police officer saw torture ongoing in front of him when he stepped away  so what we know about the at present is that she made police report on one of them when she made police report the police told that look you know it's unlikely we're going to be able to solve this case we just don't have the resources to handle all of them and under th overlooked an issue of fact or law had been decided incorrectly or that a change in law in her favor had been had occurred in the meantime the board denied the motion and her brief to this court does not actually assert  and i don't believe that your change i mean we would agree that if the if the board held a someone to a high standard and subsequent precedent from the board itself from the supreme court from the circuit court says no no no the standard is much lower we would probably be arguing for remained in that instance to to allow the agency to adjudicate also if it was unclear what standard the board did or should apply but subsequent precedent clarifies it then to the agency has to have a first chance to decide under she should and the attorney general said that was incorrect unique you can accept the parties concessions to to resolve these issues you have to give careful attention to membership and harm on account of regulations do not allow you to submit to reconsider on a motion for a reconsider and so it was the a who came forward allegedly with a new reason at the end and then there's no procedure under the reg to allow for reconsider of a reconsider well two approaches your honor the board always has authority to sue a sponsor reconsider and the regulation doesn't prevent you from asking or to sue a sponsor reconsider perhaps more withholding under a matter of a p she hasn't done either yet so instead we have the board raising these issues on its own over the privet eighteen or eleven days after a b it was decided i think it was eighteen days after a b was decided again it's it's true that the position of the united states is does not mean that a b means all domestic violence victims lose it it means they have to articulate a claim that meets the requirements of the act and you can't define you or group by the harm so in terms of a b being a complete preclusion of domestic violence claims no that's not the position of the united states we would also however read grace as being directed to the credible fear process that v h s conducts when someone seeks admission without the required with other quiet entry documents the only reason the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate this case or to educate the grace case rather is because of its connection to the credible fear of process which goes by hay vs litigation in the district of the district of columbia  court of appeals to many more of these cases than the district of the district of columbia does because of the ordinary process is to get a final order of removal and then go to the court we see these all the time but i'm still concerned it doesn't appear that you substantively engaged with the second petition if you don't win on your procedural no jurisdiction point what do we do with the second petition send it to the attorney general sessions said that it would be difficult as all asylum cases are he did not say it would be impossible she has to come as i haven't seen it yet she has to offer it to the board in the first instance it did so in a limited context and its decision this subject to appeal so may not be satisfying on it but in the absence of the board having a chance to address any of these concerns doctrine so unless they are there aren't any other questions we ask the court to deny the first petition under substantial evidence you don't want to injure i would want to explain myself back in the office about  may please the court a few quick points in rebuttal as the government noted the approach here is constrained by generally in the actual rationales offered and final decision the government noted here said the government also said in the briefing in this case this is that page thirty of its opening brief that if see oppa testified to multiple motives that the agency would have had to analyze those two motives in the central of the of the two motives now the government did make an argument about live testimony being the only relevant thing if you have concerns about that i'm happy to discuss that but the government was saying if there's testimony about the two possible motives agency would need to address the centrally we agree and see off a did testify as to a protected ground the i j a did not even doing mixed mode of analysis that's very clear if you look at the i j a decision at one fifty nine of the record i did no mix but of analysis purported to do that but it did so in an iranians way even if the child support request was an initial reason a reason maybe even a central reason it's clear that another central reason at least was persecution based on the protected ground now as to the second decision by the b i a the order denying reconsideration just to briefly address the exhaustion argument i think we've addressed it maybe even exhausted it in our briefing here but the statute authorizes one motion to reconsider the government counsel referred to the regulation not barring us from filing it was going to read that regulation which is eight c f r one thousand and three point two b to a party  true but if it is if it does come to fruition it's obviously not you've been about this before i have had obviously it's not clear whether ultimately there would be relief in the case or not that would be something to be addressed on remained by the but two things i would n  one the wall here is clearly in flux a b came out the second decision in this case interpreted a b in a way that the government in the grace case and here today walks away from and does not defend in its brief so it's hard to relief for a client that is certainly true the other thing and i'm not disparaging any other lawyer on the way and noting that can somebody make a thank you appreciate that as the final thing that i would know just based on something that the government's counsel said today he noted that when see up of lived with tony she was not harmed during that time what she did testify to is that when they were together he told her that women  honduras who disobey the men there and domestic relationships with are worthless and try ash that's at page three eighty five of the minister of record and then when she attempted to leave he carried out that view he carried that forward by his actions to her which  again this is not a case of simple harassment or stalking or something like that this is a case where the actions and his words make it quite clear that his motivation was to keep trapped in this sexual relationship and death based