good morning may it please the court my name is catalina cross and i represent the petitioner walter jala your honor the issue at hand is whether an increase in violence is sufficient to constitute a change in country conditions such that a motion to reopen is established we argue that it does in two thousand and eight the ninth circuit and then beholder how that for an alien to succeed on a motion to reopen he must first present evidence of country conditions second show that such evidence of material third establish that such evidence was not discoverable or presented at the previous hearing and lastly that new evidence together when considered with the twelve and through the submission of country reports for el salvador issued by the department of state for the years two thousand and eleven through two thousand and thirteen now so can i have a more fundamental question it seems to me in this case your client was asserting that because he was a former police officer that he was going to be tortured except in his own country correct that is correct on that in the motion to reopen i'll say the second motion to reopen it seems that there was another argument posed which had to do with the fact that his family connections would lead to very bad things happening to him in his home country correct that's currently on or do you happen to have the second motion to be ourselves that i'll call the motion to reopen do you have that with honor so i want to ask you about that if i could and i'm going to page numbers i'm going to use our i'll call a r and it seems to me i just want to make sure i understand is putting correctly that if you go to starting on page forty two yes on or it says here that b i a should find that the instance of persecution against members of mr ellis family is a change in country conditions you see that section the honor and then if you continue to pages forty four to forty five the bottom forty four forty five it seems that that is where your client was making this other social group argument relating to his family and i think is maybe one more instance if we keep going on page a r fifty also says here alternatively as a member of mr r ya'll is family the harm i just brother is or anyone else in the record that this argument was developed by your side the idea that it's not merely his line of work but also his referencing the threats that were made to the petitioner's brothers are we are here today with regard to the changed circumstances that stem from those threats to start with in two thousand and twelve respondents brother who was a member of the national civil police in el salvador at the time was off duty and approached by several gang members who because of his position in law enforcement threatened his life let me ask a question about that actually council so your argument is that this additional group that he's a member of is his family member group but doesn't the record show that the gang members targeted his brother threatened his brother miguel not because he was a member of that family but for being a police officer so in not a new group but the same group that they previously considered yes your honor that is correct however the petition also has a brother who is not part of law enforcement and who is also threatened by gangs and reference was made to the petitioner walter ya'll as part of those threats so that threat indicates that it's not only because of the title law enforcement but also because of a relation to jala family so are we talking about the threat that they were looking for walter i allah that is cracked that is the threat that was made to francisco jala at the time that he returned to al salvador after being deported from the united states in two thousand and twelve so do you interpret that as they were looking for walter or they were looking for his brother because he was related to walter well i think that they're one in the same here your honor because of these threats francisco you know actually ultimately fled el salvador and now lives in mexico because the threat to his brother was directed not only at francisco walter jala through him so there was no way to separate the two just being a member of that family put francisco ya'll at risk and walter jala and miguel yellow were part of that unit to the other brothers it's our understanding that they are now living in smaller areas of al salvador to stay away from as much as possible the gangs that have targeted the rest of the family in fact now miguel eola lives in hiding somewhere in a remote part of el salvador where the petitioner has little or no contact with him so you're just you're right now making this change country conditions argument so that you can be excused from the time the deadline requirement this is not to the marriage yet right practice is not to the merits yet because this is the merits of these claims would be something that i believe the and immigration judge would analyze and give it the weight that they believe is warranted further your honor in two thousand and thirteen the petitioner was informed by his brother miguel yalit that the violence in el salvador had increased to such a degree where it was inescapable and as i mentioned he now lives in hiding further the us department of of diplomatic security stated that in two thousand and twelve the leading cause of non natural death in el salvador was homicide making it the second highest per capita murder rate in the world in fact of the violence and also has escalated so much that today are experiencing a caravan of immigrants from el salvador who have left because the situation there is so dangerous and we're speaking of people who are women and children and have no ties to law enforcement in our case the petitioner can't escape his perceived relation to law enforcement despite the fact that he's no longer a member of the police force and also with or and hasn't been there in ten years but the standard you have to establish is qualitatively different so the evidence has to be qualitatively different from what was presented during the original removal proceedings what do you believe is the best evidence in the record for you that is different not merely quantitatively well i think that the best evidence in the record would be the fact that starting in two thousand and twelve the petitioner's family was targeted as his claim in two thousand and three to made no mention of the family being targeted so i think in this case it adds to the illegally cognizable social group that the respondent is a member of and it differentiates the claim from that of the claim that was made in two thousand and three honors i urge the court to find that the petitioner has shown change circumstances in el salvador sufficient to establish the basis for a motion to reopen again this is just to meet the minimum standard of a motion to reopen we know we understand that the actual meat of the claim would be something that would be argued in immigration court and the veracity of the statements and all of the evidence that was presented would be adjudicated at that time is there el a police officer had received death threats and twenty twelve and that his other brother francisco i received death threats by a gang who indicated that they were looking for petition and this is since he hasn't shown that is material to his claim where he is claiming that the be in twenty fifteen said respond is not seeking asylum or withholding of removal on account of his family membership is that your understanding of the arguments that they made in their motion to reopen yes your honor if i may states that he could raise such an argument but does not actually state that he is raising such an argument i just know he doesn't say to any evidence in the record doesn't he did not raise it in his as i am application or in his twenty there can declination furthermore in th versus lynch in that case the petitioner had a certified in his appeal brief to the board that he was at risk due to his familial affiliation and that there was a vendetta that gangs had against the family for going to be willing to testify i know you didn't write the brief in this case i know you inherited it but if i can take you to the government's brief in this case page twenty two and if you look at they are five you know when you're there so the government's brief cites a r five as proof that the board rejected his claim because it lacked evidence if you look at a r five it says the respondent suggests in the motion that the gangs are seeking to harm him on account of his membership in his proposed particular social group cit  motion at eight to nine now if you go to the motion to reopen at pages eight to nine so now we're at a r forty and forty one that's v m a police officer claim that's not the family claim so when the government's brief says that the b i a projected the claim for lack of evidence this point to the one part of the motion to reopen is he still has to make a showing to show that what the motion of the would be warranted and that he wants an exception there is a certain burden he does need to sustain even with just from the face of the declaration that the creation just doesn't have sufficient facts to support  here's my concern and i'm not saying that his claim is a strong one all right this is really more of a procedural concern my concern is that the b a didn't realise what he argued in his motion to reopen and that they missed it how can we be confident that they be i actually understood the argument he was making and again the motion to reopen was not the best motion reopen ever read was in the clearest but why is my if i'm concerned to be i didn't even realize i made the argument prove me i'm wrong is the adjusted but they said he didn't make it that's an argument it may not be a good argument may not be a supporter argument but but it's an argument correct take stop stop stop going to based answer my question here did he make an argument that he should receive some relief because if something happened to a family member argument i mean if that's the standard you want to have that we can apply that to the government all the brief it filed with this court so we can say we don't really argue that because you said you could argue it so therefore it's not an argument is that the standard you want to apply so you're honest but i would statute and it's also been determined in case law that the family can be of a particular social group but it's commonly known among immigration lawyers and probably immigration judges where this law but he has no case raising it if you check the boxes on the asylum application for particular social group and not for family he resigned a lot of the status of a former police officer that was his first asylum application and as well as twenty thirteen all right you're over your t