compelled to find a different finding standard as to the withholding and the convention against torture claim the understanding of the standards of review as outlined here you have one more procedural problem at this point that arises under rid of that i feel compelled to mention because of the intervening change of law since the time of the briefing that the issue is if this becomes a petition for review analysis in this case there is documentation in there on the identity of the village areas and way way to go province department rather as to the cohesiveness that would be one of several possible grounds on finding a social worker so that does present a problem i believe secondly although that since the court has frequently dealt with the issue of the state department report that is not on the record either and that would one issue i'd like to address first of the substantive issues would be on the restriction of remove the issue the standard which we must meet now under the real i d act in the intervening change of the law would be whether this record compels a contrary finding to the finding of the immigration judge they're reviewing the decision of the immigration judge because the board of immigration a specific area when they saw when the employer terry comes in and then specifically they're looking at this area i think from the record and from her testimony as well as being an area of insurgency and they're going to impose military control on it and part of that control is breaking the female population down into its division of labor and essentially turning the female my and indians locally in this politely that would be the i think the circumstantial evidence is the way the military's conducting themselves on page eighty two by her own testimony we have to understand she illiterate and if we were using double translators and hearing by shot of it was to assure her understanding that there actually been a directive against the village issued by the president at that point that that would be the basis opinion to this particular woman who at that time was roughly eleven years old you state your statement of the issues presented on appeal in your case you state five very broad issues sweeping is there anyone that you would like to this is why you should reverse the decision on specifically the issue that was just addressed the judge's main content main finding that sadly issue here is not finding a finding on the basis of the record that he had no nexus no connection between what is obviously a form of persecution under the case law grave and other forms of abuse and the one of the five enumerated grounds on that withholding claim and just finding there's no connection between the two your argument is the record compels such a crime yes and that's the standard that necessarily applies now after it is no longer the standard real i d act rather it's no longer the standard and fortunately i'm not stating it right is there any she asked to be released from detention she asked to be released from detention in order to i ten a hearing pending proceeding against any other kid well it's my understanding under the juvenile law proceeding and you know i'm not talking about in the abstract i mean is there a pending perceiving if she wants to get youngest children and what's the point if there's no date set no here is going to be subject to future review as i understand it from the public defender the assigned to him so what are we supposed to do the problem at this point is without an claim still a lie as to her rights to eventually intervene and assert her parental rights as to the three youngest children yes yeah but that can be done but that's premature it's not mooted but as to the rightness issue without an immunity hearing date court would be correct obviously to the hearing that's already going by that is right is there anything that may or may not happen in the future that is correct because she's now eternity general or for my security or whomever your counsel for you good morning i'm cynthia parsons and i represent the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security where you usually work review over legal and constitutional claims precludes review by this court of the main issues that are present in this case under withholding of removal and restriction of removal under the convention against torture none of the claims made under withholding or under the convention against torture present legal or constitutional issues if you look at the framing of the issues by the petitioner he alleges that he met his burden of proof that there was sufficient evidence for evidentiary and factual matters not legal and constitutional issues over which this court under a petition preview of a criminal alien can review and constitute consequently we would excuse me the court stated that this resort judicial review over legal and constitutional issues however these are not legal and constitutional issues need some legal issue evidence that these soldiers to occur because they knew she was the new savannah trona rather the only evidence and testimony that's in the record is that she was taken because she was a young girl she was available  no evidence that they were taking her because she was a comparable indian the only evidence is that she was a ten eleven year old girl and she was available and as reprehensible as that treatment is and it is reprehensible to have a claim one must connect that reprehensible treatment to one of the categories our contention is that the evidence simply wasn't there to connect it sufficiently to one of the protected categories and certainly the evidence isn't there to compel a different result saying that the evidence was so overwhelming that the decision of the immigration judge on those issues was around yes and should be reversed appears to me that she didn't belong to an sufficient connection there is evidence that she had an m p trainer who supported the grill is what we don't have is any evidence or testimony there was she didn't testify that any of the soldiers said hey we know your a and this is what we do to the families she was with them for some considerable length of time and yet she didn't testify that they ever even mentioned her aunt moreover when the guerrillas took her again for the length of time from her that she was taken in the car she was related to her aunt or she was taken particularly because she was a combo indian as opposed to being a ten or eleven or twelve year old girl who couldn't fight back and have to be available so the evidence simply isn't there to come hell a contrary result there if there had been testimony regarding a letter sent to the house  the house regarding you know at the trial no we know you support the growers and got to watch your nieces were going to get them if there had been discussions from the soldiers even offhand comments from the soldiers that we likelihood of a threat of future persecution the only real evidence the petitioner gave to regarding why she feels she would be threatened currently went down to basically two things first a couple that she knew had recently returned from the united states to guatemala and when they were there they were approached by i believe it was the guerrillas who asked them if they just come from the united states where did you come from and do you have american dollars we want the american dollars there was no evidence that they were coming after these people because they were comparable indians in fact there was not even a direct tells me t there was no evidence that they approached these people because of any political opinion rather the evidence was they thought they'd just come back to i think they might have valuable american dollars people returning from the united states who might have american dollars are not a particular social group that's not a political opinion here yeah that's true they're for that's what they felt threatened by once again it's it might be scary that he has sought her out there's no evidence that he has contacted her and there's no evidence he's tried to contact her so there it's unclear why she was afraid twenty years later that this man would harm her moreover she tried self returned to guatemala in one thousand nine hundred five she was there for two months she did a very young child with her she were very close to her aunt and yet the only experience she had while she was there is that she was approached guerrillas who wanted to know who she was and where did you come from and she lies had always been here all the time and they said now we don't know you we don't know and they said you know what we do  around the village for a while don't constitute a particular social group that is not a political opinion once again it may have been frightening to have experienced but we are lacking the nexus to one of the five enumerated categor i just very quickly regarding the claim for convention against torture similarly to the claim for withholding of removal there is even less evidence in the record to compel a contrary finding under the convention against torture  there is no evidence that harm that she fears going back to a country having the guerrillas ask her where she came from asking her for money ask her if you know who you are there's no evidence one time there have been tremendous gains in stability in that country we're very familiar with these two twenty four and so with the world for end with the evidence being that that the people who are being subjected to any harmful treatment are really high government officials she clearly is not that coupled with all of the rack of testimony does not compel a contrary result and therefore we would also suggest to the court that the convention against torture plain also shifted ok thank you very much  bennett just briefly your honor as to the issue of whether the real i d act eliminates the power of the court to review a withholding or convention against torture claim  second problem with governments argument is that if the court follows that reasoning then the real idea act creates necessarily an entire class of aliens that would be precluded from any kind of turning to the other dan cherry issues of if you don't concede that a ten year old cannot have a imputed political opinion i believe she can especially you know the facts of this case i think the circumstantial evidence and the direct of future persecution you know other side says yes but under these facts twenty years later with all these changes there's no way that you can sustain that burden which your answer to that if the full co war regarding withholding of remove all comes back in after an act then a real idea on this petition for you then the burden is on the government not on the respondent theory but it is a resumption of past persecution what's your answer to the government's statement that we there's nothing here the government's only evidence is a state department report and i think under the precedents in this circuit that is not enough it has to be a particular life fighting to rebut the presumption now they could come forward with evidence rebut it they didn't do that and that's the problem in this case if there's fast persecution is found in this case and necessarily the presumption is not in ri but based on the status of this case and getting a little few tortillas made for them while they are travelling through the area i mean subsequently burned in one thousand nine hundred five according to my client's testimony so it's quite obviously a target area and it's a target community