we call our last case for the morning js rich rigid focus on the case completion goals of the united states department of justice mr prez and to the united states at the age of twelve he was placed in proceedings in two thousand and one and was attempting to apply for a form of relief called mccarron to very straightforward form of relief that would have enable him to receive a green card the case went on there were three different judges who were on the case and finally points that are in my mind crucial for you to address one is that the evidence before her was such that there was no way to say who had killed  the petitioner's father and uncles and because there was no way of knowing who you could say that that was the government or someone the government was unwilling or unable to control and therefore you you couldn't  have a future persecution claim and second it and as a function of that since you don't know who you could know why since you couldn't know why you could tie it to any persecution on account of being a member of a group cetera  what was in what way was the i g s decision lacking in substantial evidence to reach those two conclusions you were only entered that with two points number one there js focus on complying with the case completion goals made it very clear that you wanted to have this case adjudicated i'm with you and i understand there are no let's just set that aside for saying because that is a separate argument right let's that aside for a second and focusing on on the i g the two decisions that she did make kenyon is the is the record such when you ask it this way can you point to the evidence that compels that conclusion because that's what we have to do it's not simply that you could draw a different conclusion from the evidence the record has to compel a conclusion other than the idea reached what evidence are you relying on to say look this this is where you have to go  we submit that this is circumstantial evidence of the mode of the identities and the motives of the person if you get to the daughter's return and that situation i know is that there that bears on the well founded fear of persecution that conditions were cited had not changed in guatemala and were such that in the when the  advise her to leave the city that where she had been right away because that to me might go to the end willingness to control because instead of saying ok we're going to continue this investigation that we were going to continue they basically whisked her out of town to the airport and it's a be noted it but i think this with respect to the motive i mean i just said they wanted to know who she was no i don't know that it's so much who but it definitely is why and you offer a plausible answer to that the i j a i think said it could be coincidence or there's probably much more than coincidence there's probably something going on here but do we know that it's not a family feud with you know the mccoys and whatever do we know or is there something that know what it's on account of your honor in terms of perhaps being a family feud the petitioner and his mother and sister all has five that there are no remaining family members in the country so as as far as the other question that you ask this is where i think it the due process issue becomes almost inseparable from the issue with regard to the identities  motives of the individuals who are responsible for the murder of petitioners father and uncles as i was stating the i j a sighting at the moment that she agreed to reinstate we submit your honor that had mr pres had additional time had the i j a complied with this court's holding in hashmi first attorney general that says that the i j a may not have this exclusive focus on the case completion goals how can you say it was an exclusive focus when the i just said more than once look if you need more time i'll give you more time the important thing here is to see that we do this right that those are direct words but that's certainly the import of the things that i j said when scheduling this in the face of those comments on the record how can you say that this is like hashmi where it was a heedless rush to meet those goals did make it clear i once or a several times i've read with you that she was trying to maintain due process i submit that nevertheless by allowing mr praed only two weeks  you had yours at that point by his own account he'd had years right well his i thought i'm sorry i thought he actually wanted this hearing your honor his application had been pending much easier form of relief to acquire when did he realise that he was going to have to proceed that was in may two thousand and six your honor that was the next to last hearing that he had now you want to have the i j asked for all of the documents have been submitted at once or i would agree and all the applications tribe been submitted all at one time i would agree with you but in this case there was kind of approach to the forms of relief that at least that was what was taken by the third i j well as his first hearing was scheduled for april nineteenth two thousand and two before i guess he was saying i want to go with the car i mean so at some point it's released two thousand and two he was planning to or should have been planning to make his pitch for asylum right so i'm having a hard time when you say he only had two weeks he had anticipated making a case years earlier what was what was wrong about the i j a saying in that context particularly saying it would give you more time for you needed let's go ahead now that we're back on asylum and schedule  applications and supporting documents at once i think it would have been a different case but given the approach the i j a took i don't believe it was unreasonable for mr pereira's to attempt to  upon his return to an amount that and the witnesses were found to be very very credible is that correct that is correct i mean there's just no doubt here it's a very unusual record from that standpoint yes that's correct however there's a failure at the sufficiency of the evidence well but  have been killed while you were headed back there would you not have a real fear that this was going to happen to you because these people definitely didn't like this family  you are correct however the the fire that was found at the time that the father was kidnapped was too remote in time for the end for the immigration judge to make the assessment that they were gorillas involved in the one thousand nine hundred eight murder of his father and with regard to  of persecution we would not say that he doesn't have a subjective fear of potential harm because he has lost a father and two ankles but he doesn't know where that fear comes from and for it to pray in order for him to merit relief and the immigration contacts establish that the persons who he fears are the government forces government is unable to control we must also establish their motive for the for the actions against their father and unfortunately a note left at the scene of a kidnapping in one nine hundred eighty eight when the father has been retired from the civil patrol since one nine hundred eighty three it's far too removed for the immigration judge to be persuaded that he has a reasonable fear of the village in one thousand nine hundred eight or today  in addition to that the country person two thousand six has no indication there are any issues with regard to activity strangely refer the i g didn't refer to the country reports now i'm just giving supplemental information in the record in terms of and i was on the impression the country reports actually bolster the concept that there still was a great lack of stability in the country that is true but it's not by the guerrillas it's actually it's actually the government it's acquired status in a political party agra and strangely fark which is a guerrilla organization was not originated in guatemala actually the fark is a guerrilla group that's in colombia with limited reach what's your position if the government has one on whether children of it was the mall of the very cause at this point i don't believe there's any evidence to show that family members of persons who have served in talks about that wouldn't that fly here yes i mean the government and the courts have held that member family members have been known to be a particular social group for purposes of  m however the facts in this particular case don't lend itself to establishing the proper nexus for it to be found here it well i mean there has to have been persecution on account of something so you you can identify a motive but if there are several groups or individuals or people that would have that motive you have to be specific as to exactly who yes you do have to know who because it still has to be the government a person or forces the government is unable to control but in addition to that it does have to be on a kind of a s tory protect the ground well it could be the government's unwilling to control i mean just and i would think the evidence here of of you know them spiriting her away they didn't want to pursue this investigation anymore they just want to be done with it i mean how much evidence do you need given the fact that her the threats were anonymous and actually the the statement by the sister and on that person may have had about mr munis is father or any opinion he may have or imputed to mr units himself again the identity in a motive of the perpetrator is crucial to the critical elements of establishing his claim for to the guatemalan military isn't that enough it would be but that's not the facts in this case there are clandestine groups where you can establish membership where even where the identity is not know you can still show that there is persecution but the facts in this case do not lend closing i would just like to say i don't know if you want to address the due process issue but just as the justices have noticed the immigration judge did give him ample opportunity to to continue their case been represented by counsel since two thousand and one they were prepared to go to trial in two thousand and two when he failed to appear almost ordered removed in absentia since that time not one of his counsel has appeared before the court and requested a continuance which distinguishes this case from how she may which is the case counsel has raised as to support his claim there's been no denial of continuance in its case and it's been very clear on more than one occasion that the immigration judge was willing to continue the case if in fact they had presented information or evidence that or suggested or identify the type of evidence they could have put forward to support it i'm i'm drawing a blank why is he what did he do whereby we facts and circumstances of the individual case in make in using the judicial calendar so i submit your honour's that some of the basic documents that could have a bit more meat on this case could have been submitted or by mr pres had he been given more than two weeks i never tendered was there ever any kind of an effort or application to supplement the record to say if you you know please reconsider in light of this tional evidence that occur now you want however there were there are just some basic questions that could have been answered the i is it's going to take more than two weeks to get that kind of evidence there also could have been perhaps evidence regarding the military service of mr president's father and uncles and exactly what they did where they did it when they did it so the case could have been flushed fleshed out a great deal more we submit that the evidence available establishes why substantial evidence that mr paradis qualified for asylum but had mr pres