which is really to jas virus life in somalia there are many issues raised in this case and i plan to focus on the mr furze challenges to the denial of three types of relief withholding our questions on any other issues as well applying the lot of withholding to the undisputed record abbots mr farrer proved that it is more likely than not that he would face a threat to his life and those associated with western governments we're not talking about just any return e we're talking about those that have lived in the united states long enough to become americanize to be associated with america in their speech their western beliefs their culture their mannerisms their dress mr farrer who was credible by the agency testified that two of his own cousins were killed after being deported to somalia the agency ignored the undisputed record evidence from an expert from experts that expert declarations that also bob consider such westernized trainees to be infidels and spines and being the four of us molly government and the like the lack of clan connections and while the agency acknowledged that the government does harassing discriminate return east they didn't address the immigration courts can't rely on it as state to purport that doesn't address the specific issue the specific question raised thus the agency failed to give reason consideration tribal membership and not being american honest somalis so in so far as there was persecution it wasn't on the ground if he was alleging it seems to me the record was weak and we would clearly we would not be able to say that them record compels a different finding your client would not suffer something that would rise to the level of persecution for being so called american well your honor is correct in that the past persecution was based on clan membership and we did not raise that issue to go to here it is his claim of being an american ice reach for any we raise that issue with regards to the burden of proof for internal relocation and whether internal relocation is reasonable but regardless of whether you believe he suffered past persecution on a different basis and and whether that shifts the burden of proof and relook relocation it doesn't matter because mr farrer did prove a country why threat to himself and i would disagree with the assessment that he record evidence was weak there were two acts whatever help how would you say that the record  that he would be persecuted on the basis of being an american as some are not it's a democratic form of government albeit one with a lot of problems i understand that they that they have several constitution that makes islam the state religion and he has more moderate religious beliefs but but he well two things are claiming is that the agency did not consider the record evidence that in the record this was pointed out to the agency below on numerous occasions well it's the other act or declaration in the record and avery here's the problem isn't the government fighting the fact that the nearly every institution of the somali government the other point i'd like to make in response to your question your honor is that we're not challenging in this space on  challenging this based on the fact that the agent failed to give reason consideration and consider all of the evidence in the record as they're bound to do and that is a legal error we are not challenging the factual determination  different any any challenge to that is just not right i believe the court's corrective would be one thousand two hundred and thirty one dollars detention at that point yeah but but the court would still i believe need to give guidance to the lower courts on this period would begin it would be the st day of the removal period but that still a promise that needs to be resolved and to reach the conclusion and if the court were to reach that conclusion i think it's necessary to explain why in which has been briefed in the motions i just want to point out that it's clear that the government intends to read it seen as on the face of its own papers the only reason the sole reason for his release was the client's not even a party to and it's on appeal he can't defend that and the ruling that we're asking the court to make is that the person who's been held under his will when he succeeds attention for years on end cannot  would be fair to say well those three years are erased from the council only because a person was temporarily released when it's clear on the papers evidence or at least temporarily and soley because of the frame an injunction and i think the time circuits case i understand it is in strict scrutiny case throughout the decision that the supreme court was speaking of the narrowness of the the scope of the tension we know that those facts are not the same anymore today and that the court sh to reach in terms of the fact that there is a due process problem we're also asking the courts of old that categorically three years is too much which i know which was a dispute  the majority in the concurrence whether there should be a multi factor balancing test or a bright line rule to reply we're not here to request a six month rule this is not the case for a lad you know we're seeing a three years too much but if the substantial evidence standard would apply and the record does not compel the conclusion that mr farrer would more likely than not suffer torture and with regard to the he gets petition we do believe that is moot because he's been released but also if the court does extremism actually does show differences there are points that mess john mckillop makes that are in the record but there are also parts of the record that show that countries reopened returning somalis to somalia because the situation for westernized citizens have improved such as sweet and the danish report in talks not sweden reopening they're also contradicting information about whether al shabaab actually did ample treat the government so their expert opinion suggesting that but there are also because it the agency did consider the record it it points it out evidence that it's are as showing that he did not meet his burden to show or more likely than not  t he would more likely than not suffer persecution on account of any of those protected grounds and so if the court does not have any further questions and we will also rest on our roots i have a question about and there is an exception for questions of why me and this is an argument about failure to get race consideration is a better question not a question of yes your honor it is a question of law you just disagree that it's actually a colorful question in th states because the agency it would if they did the immigration judge pointed out are parts of the record that it concerned in making its and now assessed and although it didn't discuss every single piece of evidence it did point out information in the record that would show that it's not more likely than not for mr parks being harmed and it's not unreasonable for the immigration judge to do that and it does that is that there's nothing the record that shows decision but there is a review of the record to determine whether it compels a different whether mr fair has shown that the record compels a conclusion that he would more likely than not suffer torture the court would review it would not be any event that he continued to beat a lot of that there was a problem detaining following that it might be that he could follow another atheist petition but that's a different question for a different yes that's correct your honor thank you thank you for your time thank you your respon works i would also just note that a court cannot ignore an entire set of evidence that goes to the heart of the claim and there nothing in the record i would just like disagree with the government's characterization of the record there's nothing in the record to dispute the claim that al shabaab attacks westernize or attorneys those associated with western governments and that this court consider it as a factual claim it does compel the conclusion that she was entitled to its holding and kept protection thank you i think we u one detention actually began because in the lower courts the government's position was that it began rocking twenty one thousand so yeah i get it going thank you  that's all of our business this morning our court will be in recess until tomorrow thank you