i'll seek to preserve three minutes for bottle in denying the application for withholding of removal the immigration judge committed two critical errors that were directly related and the st was the failure to acknowledge that the record compelled the conclusion that mr good boy himself had been targeted for assassination when three men broke into his home where he lived alone in the middle of the night went directly into his bedroom and without saying anything shot the man that they found there now fortunately for mr doyle he was his friend who is visiting him who was in his bedroom and the board nonetheless upheld that finding and said that there is no clear error in immigration judges finding that the car targeted the applicant after the may two thousand and seventeen home break in because he was a witness to the cartels the murder of his friend in the applicant's health but this finding ignores the fact that he was the original target of that attempted assassination the record provides for no alternative basis to suspect that anyone but the petitioner was the intended target and all of this directly relates to the next terror which was the immigration judges failure to acknowledge that or to is acknowledge his claim that he had been targeted on account of his family relationship instead the immigration judge again concluded simply that he was targeted because he witnessed the murder in his home yet in his testimony at the hearing and previously in his application for asylum and in his interview before the asylum officer each time he he discussed how he was targeted because of his relationship to his cousin and in the individual hearing he explicitly testified when asked why he was targeted because i was a cousin of my cousin the immigration judge then asked him well how did they know that did they know you to be his cousin and he confirmed explaining how and this is a page one hundred and sixty eight in the record so even as a pro se is an unrepresented individual he explicitly stated he was targeted on account of his family relationship yet the immigration judge failed to make any findings regarding whether he had been targeted on account of his relationship to his cousin now the board then makes a clear stating quote the immigration judge was not required to accept the applicant's version of events that is that the cartel targeted him because of his relationship to his cousin and quote but it is not as if the immigration judge considered and rejected his version of events instead the immigration judge ignored his claim he ignored that he had stated that he was targeted because of his cousin and is this court has said  saigon dock and other cases immigration judges and the board are not free to ignore arguments raised by a party and this was especially critical here because this was the basis for which the immigration judge denied him his alleged failure to demonstrate that he was targeted on account of a protected ground now the board belatedly attempts to cure that by gay gene in fact finding in the st instance the board and its decision said that the petitioner's testimony was insufficient to sustain his burden and that's a page for the record however the board is not entitle to engage in fact finding the regulations explicitly preclude the board from engaging in fact finding and that's an eight c f r one thousand and three dollars d thirty four dollars and as respondent themselves acknowledged in their brief on page thirty two dollars the determination of the motivation of the persecutor is an issue of fact and of course that citing to boards controlling precedent and matter of g b n so here you had the board in appropriately stepping into the shoes the immigration judge and making a determination on whether the petitioners credible testimony demonstrated that he was in fact targeted because he was a cousin of his cousin and in fact even if the board were empowered to engage in that fact finding get them out of the way because of that is that persecution would come of to ground of family no i think if he were targeted because of knowledge he had about the cartel that could interfere with their operations then the government could have responded that is not a particular social group as defined by case law but case law defines a person being targeted because of his family member relationship as a quintessential particular social group and in this case we know that petitioner through his credible testimony had made clear that he never had any involvement with the cartel and in fact that was what create friction with his cousin the st place leading to his cousin to move out of his place so at a minimum it demonstrates their need to be additional fact finding done by the immigration judge but none of that fact finding in fact occurred and the other without corroboration he was found credible whose testified it was targeted on account his family relationship and unlike an asylum claim he need not demonstrate that he was targeted soley because of his family relationship so he has this credible testimony that should have been sufficient if it was not pursuant to this court controlling precedent in cases like randy holder it would have been incumbent on the immigration judge to then provide notice to the applicant that he needed more than just that testimony and providing the applicant with an opportunity to say either submit the crowd rating evidence or to explain why such programming evidence was not available but of course none of this occurred so at a minimum you have the failure of the agency to even address his claim that he was targeted on account of his family relationship and i'd like to turn now to his claim for protection under the convention against torture the only reason the immigration judge denied his claim for protection was because he found that there was not evidence to demonstrate that the government would acquiesce or consent to the cartels tarr actions targeting him and in fact he said he relied on the fact that the petitioner testif that he had no problems with the government of mexico and so the immigration judge seized upon his response to this general broad question about whether he had problems with the government of mexico but then ignored that a few minutes later the petitioner proceeded to testify that the police had actually attempted to grab him at the cartels behest in order to turn him over to the cartel and so you have the agency completely ignoring a critical fact demonstrates acquiescence actually more than acquiescence direct collaboration by the world police with the cartel and the born again does not explain how the immigration judge's opinion could be consistent with the fact that he had been targeted by the police instead the board states or the immigration judge noted that police activity in the order and it is true that in the beginning of the opinion when summarizing the testimony of the immigration judge noted that he had gone to the police for help the police had laughed at him and told me better run and then tried to chase him down yet when annette analyzing the application for protection under the convention against torture the immigration judge ignored all that all he focused on was his isolated statement saying he had no problems with the government of mexico there's no way for the agency to find that the government would not acquiesce or consent to the cartels actions without ignoring those critical facts now not only did they ignore the facts of his case that the police had tried to help the cartel but the again ignored the country conditions reports and this is critical because the only basis he was denied was this finding that there would be no acquiescence or consent and again the country conditions reports and i would note these country conditions reports were submitted by the government attorney maher our client was on represented that point and these are the reports from the department of state making clear that the local law enforcement was involved with the cartels and allowing the cartels to act with impunity and at times collaborating with murders and disappearances of individuals and again this court has made clear time and time again we cited to argue or ramos versus holder that the failure of the immigration judge and the board to consider evidence of country conditions constitutes error he had multiple bases on which this court could determine that the record compels a finding that he should have been granted relief protection of convincing against torture i can ask you a question on that if the local police are corrupt but not the federal government is that sufficient in the law for him to show government acquiescence yes it is so we have cases from this court like barajas romeril and moderate galled that make clear that an individual's able to demonstrate eligibility under the for protection under the convention even if not all for facets of the government are involved in either or consenting to those actions and so the fact that the immigration judge noted that there was an investigation that officials went to the home to make a report on the murder does nothing to undermine the record evidence both his testimony and the country conditions reports that directly demonstrate local police are in fact involved in clabber rating with the cartel making it clear that the government would acquiesce at a minimum to the cartels actions comes also did did the i j a ever make a negative credibility determination as to any part of his testimony no the immigration judge found that he presented credible testimony now it it noted that in cross examination he had stated two different dates as to the deet on which the individuals broke into his home he tried to explain happened in the early hours of the morning so it was no longer may nd may rd and the immigration judge and there was also another confusion on the date and the immigration judge found that notwithstanding his confusion and also in part given his lack of education he did not hold that against him as far as credibility thank you now the one last issue i would like to just very quickly is the motion to remain and there's a separate petition for review challenging the board's failure to grant the motion remained even though once he finally obtained legal representation he was able to locate articles online that express we talked about the murder in his home and so when he presented those to the board the board found that it denied the motion finding that those were not previously unavailable the board conflates the issue of whether that evidence predates the hearing with the very separate question of whether an individual who was detained who is an represented has no family relationship is able to present that evidence to the court he had no way to access the internet let alone print it out and i wouldn't know that the one instruction the immigration judge gave him because he had on three separate occasions mentioned to the agency that there was evidence online the one instruction he received at page one hundred and forty one dollars of the record was that anything that he obtained you would need to translate in order to submit to the court so he had he had no meaningful up opportunity to obtain this evidence until he was able to successfully obtain legal representation so clearly this was previously unavailable and it was material as the board even recognise it demonstrated that he in fact was targeted by the cartel did you want to save a bit of time keep a little  and next we'll hear from the attorney general there's a button that would lower the only for you found that you're a step ahead of me i practiced before you came in do let me know if you can hear me but i can hear myself so i think we're probably good good morning your honor is may please the court i'm carmel morgan on behalf of the respondent the u s attorney general the government asked that you deny the petition for review as to the st issue raised by the petitioner there's substantial evidence in the record that supports the immigration judges determination that the petitioner did not meet his burden to show that he was targeted by the cartel on account of a statutorily protected ground help me with the tack clean counsel because i'm looking relied on the testimony by the respondent that he never had any problems with the government of mexico and that to me completely ignores this whole narrative about the police laughing at him when he asked for help and chasing him down and attempting to kidnap him and put him in the car the nd finding that the i j a made in connection with the cat claim is the basis of his fear is at the  skank known as lamont for having witnessed the murder but his whole claim is not that he witnessed a murder it's that he was targeted and they ended up killing the wrong person so why shouldn't those two missteps well st of all it appears to me to be a misstep and if your view is to the contrary please explain that to me and if these were misunderstandings of his claim and a mischaracterization of the record then why should i go back on that cla i am going to say something contrary to your interpretation but certainly if the court feels as it seems you may that the immigration judge did not appropriately consider evidence then the correct move would be to return it to the board for reconsideration with regard to never having had any problems in mexico that is the testimony that petitioner gave it's in the record he didn't say he misunderstood the question there's no indication that there were problems with the interpretation so that it is correct from the record that that how's it consistent with with his statement that police were trying to pick him up to put them in a police car and he said that it was that was just because they wanted to hand him over to the cartel maybe that speculative but maybe there's no adequate evidence of that but that wasn't  was i i agree on those two points that that does seem to conflict with his earlier statement that he had no problems with the government however he also made other previous statements before immigration judge one was that when he went to police they told him don't worry about it we know you didn't have anything to do with the murder go on home and if we need you will pick you up at that point he didn't say the police laughed at him or that they behaved in a threatening manner he just said they told him they'd come get him if they had any concerns he also said later that he approached the police and then he changed his mind and said not the police but the public ministry and that the prosecutor's office in fact did follow up i guess they took his concerns seriously came out to his home and interviewed both his father and his sister that lived on the ground floor so although he was found credible he has conflicting testimony as to what the local officials did  the argument that was sort by your colleague on the other side of the case that if the local police acquiesce that that's enough to show government even if the federal government is and i have a we ass i agree that the madrigal case addresses that concern and that if there's evidence that the local police would acquiesce that could be enough to establish the burden for protection under the convention against torture i think the concern here is what do you do when you have conflicting evidence you have the petitioner saying both that the police laughed at him and didn't want to help and that they in fact were helpful and started investigating  a have any responsibility in the context you're stating to make some sort of credibility finding it is more credible when he says x then when he says wh otherwise what do we do with this is evidence of well that james said was he was credible i think it's a really difficult question the i j a did find him overall are generally credible and his reservations mainly had to do with as but to sinners counsel stated some confusion or discrepancies with dates i'm not really sure what one does when you have conflicting evidence and yet you have a finding that the petition er is credible the government's argument here is going to be that the petitioner did state that the local government did take steps to investigate  the murder of the friend he didn't always state that the police were laughing at him either he had testimony that he went to the police and they told him to go back home and if they needed him they'd ask accept one in reject the other and it's a lot of substantial evidence supports the idea as analysis of the petition we would have to deny the petition but here there's a failure to address material pieces of evidence in the record and with an overall finding of credibility doesn't that dictate in favor of a remained for do over i agree with the immigration judge did not address those concerns head on one would possibly be able to assume or possibly not that he took those factors into account but it's not terribly clear on the record i would agree but also the government doesn't have to oppose a rematch that may be the marching orders that they do have from the attorney general which case i'd recommend you have be the attorney general but i mean the government is free as they often do to say we should remain in this i'm not going to say that at this time obviously if the court rules that remained as necessary there there won't be any objection from the government on that point when we ask it another question that relates to this motion to reopen that was denied and as i understand it was denied because the evidence from the internet predated the hearing and was purportedly you know thought to be available but if if is there any law on whether when they petitioner is in custody  and maybe they don't have access to the internet they should be held to that will i think the immigration i mean the board denied the motion to reopen sort of for two reasons one was that the information predated the hearing but the nd reason is it's just not material to the claim he was found credible no one's disputing that this incident at his home where someone killed happened and in fact he testified a couple different times that there were articles on the internet that mentioned his death incorrectly but that their articles existed so it's totally unclear how that would be impacting the outcome of his case the information just isn't necessary but as to your point about detainees and their access to the internet and being held accountable i really don't know i did look for similar cases and i wasn't able to find anything directly on point i was a little troubled that the petitioner in his actual motion to reopen although he said he was unable to secure evidence didn't describe specifically what steps he had taken and seems to be saying now that he didn't have access to the internet that wasn't clear in the motion to reopen  welcome i could briefly address as well the due process concerns that were raised by the petitioner it seems to me that the immigration judge asked three or four times about the motivation of the cartel in targeting the petitioner so i don't think it's accurate that he wasn't given an opportunity to express his opinion as to the motivation your question about the relationship he did state he was a cousin of his cousin but did that raise a family as a particular social group claim necessarily or might he have just been saying as he had stated in his reasonable fear interview and his asylum application that he felt perhaps the cartel was targeting him because of some information that his cousin may have shared with the cartel about him that doesn't seem to me to raise a family claim that's a relationship claim but not a family relationship it happens to be his cousin the cousin was his roommate if david the cousin had just been david the roommate the circumstances would be identical but it didn't have to do with blood ties and family i think the immigration judge although he didn't explicitly evaluate the case under family as a particular social group clearly did reject the notion that the petitioner met his burden on any ground which included particular social group and the immigration judge did follow up with questions generally about his family the father and the sister who lived on the ground floor the immigration judge asked questions and confirmed that they remain safe at the same address where their friend was killed if you have no further questions the government asked that you deny the petition for review morgan i have no further question we have none we appreciate the spirit of argument thank you your hon evans you have a short time for buttle we appreciate your spirited argument to think you're free sheet that and i will keep it short respondent has no answer for the fact that the immigration judge nor the board addressed how it could be that he tells credibly testified that he was attacked by the police rather the police attempted to grab him at the cartels behest and yet there is no government acquiescence or car consent for purposes of the convention against torture respondents don't ever address the record evidence the country conditions reports the record compels a finding that he was targeted by the cartel and that the police actively collaborate with the cartel and attempting to run him down to hand him over to the cartel so the record in this case compels an instruction that the agency grant him protection under the convention against torture now with respect to the claim for withholding we agree that the proceeding should be remanded for additional inquiry as the immigration judge did not address his claim and that's clear before the record and it's clear that the board in appropriately engaged in that claim in the st instance respondent seeks in effect to nd guess his testimony the credibility findings but respondents are not in a position to provide their rationale for the immigration judges failure immigration judge never addressed his claim that he was targeted on account of being a cousin of his cousin and as we pointed out in our brief yes he was asked two times with respect to why he was targeted in addition to when he said he was target on account of his being a cousin of his cousin and both times the testimony was distracted and not fault up in one case the trial attorney interrupted and pointed out that he was in a witness of his cousin's murder and that distracted the immigration judge the immigration judge did not follow up with his questions and on the other occasion the immigration judge got distracted and never pushed for any more response as to his initial question council are you arguing that we should remain and on the withhold that laming because of the conflicts in the record but that we should at that same time grant the relief under care as opposed to remembering them both that is our request yes and the other point i'd make is that there was no contradiction to say that police officials came to investigate the murder at his home and yet later on when he interacted with separate people police officials who had then had instructed him that he had better run that they laughed at him those are two separate events that's not a contradiction that in one case the police laughed at him and another case they did not if you think you're over your time and i have one final question for you if i may i believe that the record has has to be developed further for for purposes of the application for withholding of removal because there's been no finding addressing one way or another the claim that he was a i think generally you would remain and based on the record as it exists but it would be up to the parties if it goes back before an immigration judge to decide the issue about what the immigration judge should consider at that point so i would defer to the