whipped with a cable made for beating animals and be a assume that this was persecution on account of protecting grounds but they failed to apply a presumption of future persecution and shift the burden to the government as the regulations on ambiguously require now an adult with a family of his own but they ignore that this is not a change because the same was true when mr your i had was last assaulted and called a homophobic slur by his father in el salvador and in fact mr your heads as father has continued to call him the slur on the phone  put aside prasco persecution by his brother the gags doesn't that doesn't that remove any problem with shifting of burdens and other things with respect to his withhold let me have two questions on that because i'm not sure i understand are you saying that they since they've you saying that they found the relocation was reasonable based on mr irrigators failure to show that it wasn't i thought the government if you're just country reports and because the because the claim in this case was specific to the father and because we know that mr your age is an adult and not required to live with his father all mr your head says father was more than willing to leave his home go find mr era had said elsewhere and drag him to a public place and beat him in a public place and nd there was evidence from the u s state department report saying that basically relocation in el salvador is not possible that there is no freedom of movement in all sovereign or against prevent people from moving from one location to another and the government never addressed that information rebutted it and in fact the b i i cited for that information saying that there there is petitioner to then have an opportunity to rebut that to provide evidence about why that particular location would not be accessible or would not be safe to him and in this case the government never identified any location general or specific and so mr had to didn't have noticed or an opportunity to address that in his own submissions but as i said before even the record as it stands now shows that the relocation is not reasonable is not permissible and nd to be a bell to consider more than one hundred and fifty pages of country conditions documents showing that there epidemic levels of violence against people who are suspected to be gay including by government agents and didn't address that at all and scott analysis because the government wanted to ask you about that their claim in this case was that his father or his brother and his associates were persecuted because he was gay right their claim was that he would face general persecution because he was gay the claim was that he would face persecution from his father he had based persecution in the past from his father because he was impure right yeah so there was plenty of evidence of past persecution by the father it that and and there's more therefore there's a presumption of for future persecution or maybe even future torture you challenge it i'll go back and look at you challenge the relocation part of  as the threat of harm from his brother his associates is well when it is that's sufficient to show that the aggregate threat is not or likely than not do the formula and figure out whether that's more than fifty one the b i a said we think you face no risk from your father if you're relocated and if it's doing its room was holding it alice's it said we think your risk from the brother aga move you're not suffered past persecution so there's no presumption is rather low putting those two together is that enough for us to deserve that they did every analysis or must we were quire that they actually say so i oh are you saying that the word aggregate has to be used i don't think the word aggregate would have to be used but i think the b s a would have to say it is not more likely than not that he would suffer torture from any of these sources or any of the sources ambiguous is this statement to judge find ever read to you and then the individual discussions that follow it and so i'm wondering whether or not we penalize them for being what details if the simple statement would  individual circumstances have materially changed since their last entry to the united states as a rate for asylum notwithstanding other limitations and that provision reflects congress is considered judgment with three obligations in due process that an applicant should have his day in court and should not be denied a new hearing on a new claim that couldn't have been there would have been impossible to present previously at a previous opportunity because it had not yet occurred but the government here argues that it can singlehandedly and in its  discretion reinstate a prior removal order and withhold asylum as punishment for unlawful entry without ever considering the applicant's change situation that position is contrary to the statute the us treaty obligations and to due process and t though withstanding the reinstatement of the prior order first of all the specific provision for change circumstances in the asylums that you think the congress explicitly thought about this question and it outweighs the general prohibition on rel just because it doesn't explicitly identify reinstatement that it's an exception to the reinstatement bar does not mean that you read that way particularly where the court has already allowed other kinds of can not use it for the united states thank you for taking the time to hear this case i'm just going to go right and address some of the issues that opposing counsel has raised st you argue as well and the agency used the wrong bird and it didn't ship it to the government to prove or because rebuttal of the presumption of a well founded i'm sorry there probability of persecution in the future that's really just not the case if you look on page six of their records page four of the decision it clearly says the department of homeland security has rebutted the presumption that makes it pretty clear and i j also in his decision on page seventy six  miss you could you could you deal with the relocation burden shifting issue because it seems to me that the important part if we if the important part of the analysis for the agency was that he doesn't face a risk of torture or a very small risk from his father because he can safely relocate and if that's wrong then there's you know there's a you've got a fundamental problem with the risk of torture analysis so tell me why tell me why your friend is wrong in saying that the that that finding was not made appropriately well st in terms of cat there is no presumption a few so if it was then it seems to me we have to go back and look at the other alice's more closely so tell me defend that finding for me if you well for the relocation i believe that the immigration i'm sorry they farmed out their hospital and perhaps there was one incident when his father dragged him back but many are heard of haitian but when you're able when you're trying to assess whether or not the possible to relocate the regulations look at the age hell the family try whether or not there's civil strife in the country and the agency didn't do so they identified correctly this gentleman is no longer is no longer any longer one of them has to live with his father he left his father in two thousand and five he's been able to live on his own he's able to relocate to united states where there's a different language a different culture he's now it's like he had a slight college education here he works construction he has a wife supports his family based on there was really no reason to suspect that he would be able to locate that i don't i'm not asking you to read it here i just think i was asking you if you if you had something that in mind in the i js decision well i might be i'm looking at page eighty as the court finds that respondent has failed to to agree with you i guess it just comes down to the agency is is there's a presumption that the agency considered all the evidence and in this case it's a great long decision for them  t the i a e a generally and what they did here is it look like they focus their arguments by addressing arguments that was raised by his shin or his in his in his brief before the that's the best way to play i think you know i agree with that are there any other questions that would like me to focus on arm well i don't think he needed to exhaust it because the i j wasn't authorized to consider asylum because he was put in the statute makes it very clear it basically says once your order is reinstated you have no option for relief and asylum is the heat it's not like with holding and those are protection sort of speculating i mean it's pretty clear in this review pretty clear they didn't put him into asylum proceedings because they thought he was ineligible under this statute because of prior removals they may have been corrected but we get to decide whether they were