is in court this morning with us i would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal at the end and this case is on a petition for review from the boredom immigration appeals on the denial of mr printer's request for asylum withholding of removal and relief under the ghent under the convention against torture as a preliminary matter i would like to address the government suggestion that this court declined jurisdiction over the case not preclude review of constitutional claims or questions of law that are raised in the petition of review and furthermore that the well that this court has held that the question of whether a group is a particular social group is a question of law and that's this court has jurisdiction over the matter furthermore this court has consistently held that when the immigration judge or the board of immigration appeals does not rely on the conviction in society in the matter but rather decides on them that decides the matter on the merits of the case that the jurisdictional stripping provisions to not apply and so this we would say that this court certainly has jurisdiction over the matter in this case mr painter is a member of a particular social group and that he was persecuted and he has a well founded fear of persecution in the future and furthermore there is a nexus between his membership in particular social group and the harm that he fears may i ask you as i understand it mr painter is a citizen of mexico is that yes he was born in mexico so how do you think that filters through to a claim with respect to central americans he was porn in mexico but he was raised  nicaragua he has he has passports from both mexico and nicaragua his mother is nicaragua and he speaks spanish with an incorrect one accent and when he was last in mexico he was kidnapped  america as opposed to mexico yes his accent and then questions of how he identifies himself as he identifies himself primarily as nicaraguan not us a mexican citizen well another question i had relates to the hotel in the kidnapping situation and i believe in his brief  know whether guests at the hotel were likewise targeted by the kidnappers but i could not find in the record or maybe you can help me as to where we would know that there were other central american immigrants or migrants at the hotel i don't know that that was developed in that record what the testimony was was that they extortion but the reason that he and his mother were targeted for kidnapping was because of who they were because the being in this hotel as one in the record because there's excuse me because there is no other reason that he would have been targeted and that has mother would have been targeted or that he would they would have been identified by name specifically  and as far as the question of whether extortion and can be persecution this court has held that and i all of the sessions last year that extortion plus threats based on a protected group can be persecution it was called out and they demanded money they were taken to another location and and they were armed people guarding them and his mother was i think also we have to take into account the country conditions of it into that demonstrates that there's a this is a common practice in mexico to target central american migrants to force them to obtain additional money and and furthermore that the mexican government has been complicit to some extent law enforcement and security forces have been complicit or have turned a blind eye to this kind of activity isn't if it were just minister enters experience with no other with no other no one else experiencing the same thing then i would say maybe just extortion but in this case it's  i one thing to bear in mind in this case is that mr painter was a child when this happened and so the level of threat may be maybe different in that situation where a child is going to respond to a threat and to an experience differently than an adult and as far as an individual lies threat and he has experienced being kidnapped by armed men and  certainly can demonstrate the past harm can demonstrate his risk of future harm i think the question was about torture to because again and it's not just mr printer it's that migrants central american migrants in mexico are in the context of being subjected to torture the mexican government has been called by u n advocates one of the worst by later save human rights in american continents because of the treatment of migrants in mexico and that it doubles back on my original question about being both mexican and nicaraguan and whether i mean i understand because of the sandinista situation he's concerned about  about if mexico were designated as the country removal and he would be going back as an individual but not as a group of migrants for example would that make a difference  would still be identified as as nicaragua and the assumption that he is there as some might grant and has his mother in her testimony described being treated with discrimination being told that mexico is for mexicans essentially being told that that she should just return to worship or she is from and he fears that he would have the same treatment if you want to serve your remaining ties thank you controlled substance of a conviction for a controlled substance we understand this court held otherwise in the case but the attorney general greased with judge be able to dissent and we hope at some point that the full court will address the matter but going to the merits suffered past persecution that the kidnapping however unpleasant did not rise to the level of extreme harm that is required by persecution i'm not disputing at all that it was  unsettling but persecution requires more than just detained for a relatively brief period of time and even if it was persecution which again it was not it was not on account of protect and citizenry people know he's from not from mexico and there is a country condition evidences his lawyer points to about what happens to these migrant groups passing through mexico what is the government's response to that well that i respond to there's no evidence that that wasn't fact the case though it's certainly possible but left his kidnappers give some indication other than the fact that actually did it that they were they were being targeted but it's not speculation to say that that we know that this happens in other contexts and and to presume that that is the reason that it is happening to mr painter and or has persecution does create the individual lies at risk of future harm in the disfavored group of central americans and central american migrants in mexico so we we would we would argue that he is a member of a particular social group and that he did suffer past harm and even if he didn't it he's a member of a disfavored group in mexico and was not targeted for harm on that basis and would be targeted again in the future thank you here thank you thank both counsel for your argument this morning as well as your briefing case of printer binny of vs sessions is submitted