united states he borrowed money from what we call a loan shark at an extortionate rate seventy two percent a year the loan shark also sent him clients customers who coincidentally did and we said that this petition or it's analogous because of the i j a is finding that the narco traffickers who are behind this extortion scheme because they wanted to use his business for money laundering they were really so intertwined with the government that they either word the government themselves or called the shadow government by this particular individual and anyone similarly situated refusing to go along with this scheme they were opposing the government the political position of these narco terrorists was to run the government of colombia for the benefit of the narcotics traffickers that appears to be fairly well documented we've referred to that category as business people who wouldn't go along with the corruption and it's briefed i've certainly answer any questions but i we haven't changed our position at all on that although thus far no one else has agreed with us on that part and after he didn't make the payments he was summoned to the office of i guess we call him the big man in the operation who said i need to get paid right away leave because i don't have the money and that's when they proposed that he allowed them to use his business for their own purposes he had a pretty good idea about what was going on he spoke to other people who said you're going to be killed either way if you don't cooperate they'll kill you and if you do they'll kill you presumably because pattern of how the narcoterrorists with the government exploited people and granted him catch for that reason and there were several interesting issues before this court i've already i think addressed the our claim for asylum and i would certainly answer any questions but i want to use my time more to go on to the cat because i think that's the more complex issue and there's one regulation that nobody mentioned that really should be mentioned because it is one thousand three point one small d three one and that is that governs the stand that a review of the board and it says they don't reverse the factual findings of the immigration judge unless they're clearly erroneous there's only one reference in the board's decision that even comes within that ambit where they say they don't agree that the level of corruption had risen to the appropriate level and i say that unless they find and can demonstrate that the i j a finding was clearly erroneous and not supported by substantial evidence on the record that should be disregarded but what we're really talking about is their application of the issue that's really what it's about it's not so much that they're rejecting carte blanche to tackle findings of the i j a they appear to be saying even if it's all true he doesn't meet the standard and as we've said and i don't want to beat it they beat a dead horse but we've said many times that they're still following their line of thinking they're holding in matter of this v which this court has rejected very clearly injecting they're saying it's not simply enough that the government is aware and didn't do anything it requires something more almost to the level of an active participation in the torture and in the jan case this court rejected that what we have here is a situation where there the evidence which really cannot be refuted shows the degree of narco terrorist or narco trafficking control of the government the evidence shows that what happened to lead petitioner was exactly how they operate and that colombia does not do anything if they do anything they turn such people over to the narco terrorists so there doesn't seem to be any basis at all for overturning the i j a as decision other then the board just doesn't like this circus holding on the acquiescence standard now i would getting back to asylum very briefly if if the court were to find that we were right on the asylum on his membership in a group he'd also for what it's worth and also of the entitled to restriction on removal because the board never rejected the notion that it was more likely than not that he faced torture what they appear to be rejecting that it was station for the board it wasn't crystal clear my any means they have peer to be saying but it doesn't fall within the guidelines of tact if we believe it does but the question then becomes for asylum was it because of a protected ground and if it's because of a protected ground that he had persecution and it's more likely than not he clearly qualifies for restriction i'd like to spend a minute on jurisdiction because that was the subject of a motion and having reviewed that those issues more carefully it does appear that there there's no need to know there's no question but there was a final order because unlike some of the other cases where the board just reversed is and does and says where the porting this person they actually in reversing the grant of in reversing the cat they gave him voluntary departure and as we pointed out in our brief that with regard to the the second the and i know i'm aware that the case law says they can't they can't issue an order of remove all but i don't know if that would apply to an order a voluntary departure but any event it's an interesting question because they are they are it is somewhat different to order somebody removed a grant to deny them all relief and then to grant but to grant them alternative relief if this court finds that the board was simply wrong in reversing the the grant of cat or  denying asylum that would probably solve the problem because it would be a man did back to the bork either most likely ice didn't speak you most likely remanded back to the board with it instructions to issue an order consistent with your decision eligible for voluntary departure because she hadn't been here long enough while i understand you and she was granted tat and then in overturning the and they didn't address her at all i  now right absolutely correct she was she was i mean although she talked briefly about her own family background that was more to substantiate the well founded fear she was a derivative of his cat claim say that her grant of cat was entirely dependent on his and therefore when his disappeared hers also disappeared in their view when they should have said it but they didn't i don't want to speculate as to  what the board would have done but i would say that would probably be the only legally correct role for the only legally correct option to them since they really wasn't we're not arguing that she had a record that would allow her to get a grant of kat on her own separate from what happened to her so i ask you to bear with me just for a moment i'd like to cover the merits issues which i think are actually fairly simple just talk about the jurisdictional problems ok i anticipated that that you'd be you'd be at your i frame this in terms of what am i asking you to do especially given the the motion that i filed earlier it is no camacho is that it in this case it should either be limited or distinguished because normally the camacho did not discuss the issue of what a removal order by an immigration judge is that he she wasn't of a brief that didn't it wasn't discussed in the decision and in fact it is remand the reason i asked you to remand was because there were two ambiguities in this case one is the issue that it was highlighted by petitioner that the board is was not that combined with the fact that moment to come either was decided after after this and if she had to apply it seems like a reasonable thing to do rather than spending our entire argument talking about something that neither party briefed to get the case back in front of  get those things was all then get back in front of the court with the merits issue so we could discuss that fully that was that's that's the only reason i made that argument after i made that argument i had to do that fairly quickly once i got this case what occurred to me is that there isn't to reverse that make any difference in there and what we do know and if you find that there is no final order removal in this case you don't have any jurisdiction and you can't  jurisdictional issues are fact oriented you should send it back to the court to the to the board to clarify in the first instance what their holding is with respect to whether or not there's a final order in light of knowing a camacho now the i point out that you're with decided after this case was thousand and three the the new standards of review for review of the immigration judges were were in place that they don't affect cases until september of two thousand and three the site that have to be appealed by two thousand and three so i point out that as a matter of timing that language that it used in the junkets that this court subsequently disapproved so the question that you have to deal with on the merits is is there is a different one it's not whether the board was following it it's whether under the circumstances that this case you either need to remain and as you didn't ok on the issue of asylum this is a pure substantial evidence case and and it's supported by the law squarely all the way around the board me to findings one is that there are the only argument made was that there was a particular social group of businessmen who were harassed by somebody who launched arcs or maybe related an architect or something along those lines the board said that's not a social group and sort of the immigration judge and that is squarely in line with all of the law that exists in line with this evidence at all that the harm that he is that he's asserting he was threatened with or whatever was associated with that even if it were a social group the fact is he got involved with loan sharks and he's getting what he got and he personally is getting the consequences  involvement on the issue of cat substantial evidence and the law frankly supports the board's finding with respect to cats and the reason i say that is this in order to demonstrate eligibility for cat and remember the burden is on the alien to demonstrate t eligibility for cat you have to demonstrate that there's a it's more likely than not that you're going to be harmed first that that harm it's more likely than not that harm is going to amount to torture in this case we're talking about death and whether or not nation wasn't persecution i don't know if it's like that argument but what i'm saying is that the definition of torture is the find it is your dad your it's defined in terms of excruciating pain and death doesn't necessarily involve excruciating pain so that has to be more likely than not issues and then you kind of multiply those three ratios together and overall you have to come up with a conclusion that the alien has proven more likely than not have all of those things or are the  is they the board clearly found that it is not more likely than not that this guy's going to get harmed at all by anybody for any reason they clearly found that that's an alternative finding if there's not any harm it doesn't make any difference really overturn the factual findings that's absolutely not true and that's the reason i want it out there you have to have a reason i mean if they just say that they didn't sustain the burden i think from the analysis that they offer and it's discussed and if you read our brief that it's actually discussed where that where that exists things like the fact that nothing bad happened to him things like he doesn't actually know that anybody that anything that happened to and he specifically said in this testimony he's not aware he doesn't think that anybody is actually out there looking for him in colombia or anywhere else at this time what that adds up to is substantial evidence that supports that find with you that the the word finding covers the second petition because it was raised by the v h s covering book petitioner's the board recognizes in its first paragraph that the h s is appealing regarding both petitioners they specifically overturn the finding they specifically sustain the the appeal of the h s and then although they don't discuss in detail you know they don't specifically say and we find this applies to the female  was followed by the phrase either through the government taking an active role in the feared force or be course the government is one willing to prevent such torture from occurring and they say above they repeat almost the same thing that's a page five of the record we do not agree that lead respond it would be harmed by a person acting in an official capacity so it's clearly not the evidence is of potential partners overwhelming based on the record and i do i do have i do agree with the court that the real question is whether this board decision is deported by substantial evidence on the record in it's not based upon the record that was before the immigration judge i submit that any reasonable trier of fact would be compelled to find as he found decision will now proceed to rosenbluth versus provincial securit