opinion the i j a concludes that there is no evidence in this record that one of the reasons why the cartel armed or is seeking to harm your responded is because he is men well knees topless with their handcuffs behind their back hoods over their eyes and the leader of the cartel arrives and the st and only words out of his mouth are who's man wells cousin mr de har is identified cartel leader approaches him and says because you're man walls and i'm not going to kill you today but i need you to make me a promise you're going to help find him and i'll give you two months are you in or out understandably mr d hargreaves and in the cartel leader says to him i'm going to show you now what happens if you break your promise in this is then when the horrific events transpire regarding the dismembering of this other man from to peak the record is replete with other instances of whose men wells cousin so even if we just take this one isolated event there is evidence in this record where the i j a said there is no evidence there is evidence in this record highly indicating proving that a reason mr de hart was targeted was because he's men wells cuss and essential reason indeed this harkens back to bring us which i know judge lawyer and intimately familiar with as you wrote the on bank decision where the government argued on appeal to mr brenda's had not been targeted as a child and horrible things happened to him as a child because of his homosexuality but it was instead because of the per verse interests of those who were molesting him and raising him as a child this court found otherwise this court found that instead a central reason for m homosexuality he would not have been targeted the same is true here but for mr de haar being man was cousin repeatedly throughout the record it shows that he was beaten more than the other people who were held captive with him he was it they came to him and they said we're coming at you we're doing this to you because your man was cousin there's no other reason that's good and importantly i didn't enter an adverse credibility finding here no one ever says anywhere in this whole record that man that reinaldo was picked up was targeted was persecuted was tortured because he knew man well the only information that the record speaks to is that reinaldo and mr de har were released at the same time that they both know men well and that contrary to the the leader telling mr de har i need you to promise to do this to me otherwise look what's going to happen to you then the record shows th record the other way or why isn't it enough for the agency to say that where the testimony is that cartel leaders said women all there was released to the same time that if he heard anything to that they were detained for the same reason it does not your honor we have no record evidence shows why he was detained to begin with the government and the agency have repeatedly written this into the record and it does not exist we know why they were released at the same time they both apparently knew man wow but the record is it was instances for why mr de haar was targeted it's important to note here also that the immigration judge and government counsel all agree that mr de hart was persecuted in the past this is significant this man with taste past persecution and the reason for the record goes over and over and over why it occurred and to say that there's no evidence to come to the conclusion that there's no evidence and instead leave rain all those released into this discounts all of mr bill ito's credible testimony and all the inferences that are to be followed with his indeed even dr shirks testimony addresses in his expert opinion that the reason mr de haar was targeted was because he has a familial relationship with men while this is significant at all would know other members were targeted under th circuit precedent no your honor because those individuals are not similarly situated it's interesting that the immigration judge relied on the fact that mr de har his own family were still living and in ok in nyeri it's his ex partner and his little girl and his stepson these individuals have they have no presumed knowledge of man wiles location so the fact that those family members weren't targeted in order to get to man was location is really irrelevant the same is true for the mother the mother lives in collene which we know the man well eventually fled there because we have inside information but that doesn't mean that the cartel is going to know that he's now with the mother so leaving all these other things in in order to find no evidence that a reason any reason mr de hart was targeted was because of his familial relationship it simply cannot stand the record compels otherwise additionally turning to calve while i have just a moment if i may your honors regarding acquiescence the immigration judge ignored dispositive testimony regarding past government acquiescence future probability of torture and internal relocation i want to talk to you for just a moment highlights of the court who dr shirk is because the immigration judge discounted his testimony is speculative has testified three times to our senate and house he has a five million dollars contract with the department of homeland security the department of justice he's advised the cia the department of justice and the cia our entire government relies on this individual for his expert opinion in the immigration judge in this case discounted all of his testimony is speculative what is speculative speculative is when we have no basis and we're guessing about what's going to happen sure provided numerous examples of why he came to the conclusion that mr de hart faces an almost certain likelihood of future torture and over eighty percent likelihood that the government will turn a blind eye to that and in her decision she does not address these things instead she finds that dr shirts testimony alone does not establish acquiescence and then later concludes that because the marines were in the area it shows that perhaps they were able to to assist m interesting lee the immigration judge didn't does not include and incorporate numerous areas of the record specifically if i could turn the court's attention to the congressional research report the corroborates dr shirks testimony that even if the military had shown up and tried to help mr de har they would not have helped him this as our own congress is report that the immigration judge's decision does not include under cole versus holder under the cab regulation anytime we have but we're not and i j explained particularly on the military the whole taking them into the grove when the military was in the area is explanation that well maybe the military was with another gang that was one of the things she identified is as speculative why isn't that supported by a substantial lot of what was not a permissible conclusion to draw about his testimony on that point because the record says otherwise your honor dr sure testimony and use that as objective evidence that there was another reason besides the family membership for the cartels interest in mr and your heart and mr d heart notably lived in the same residence as as man while they were roommates of his relationship to man well but because he perhaps because of his proximity to superman well might have information about where a man well was located so how would this court has found with respect when holding him for movable a protected ground would have to be a reason for any past harm or fear of harm and while while there is evidence that the cartel knew that they were stated in her in her during her time when she was asked about why they weren't targeting other family members she said they weren't similarly situated because they had no resumes knowledge of man well whereabouts and that the family members it is there are use of the word cousin and calling them cousin is just is just evidence that he had awareness he was because and and not that they were targeting him because of that as opposed to the it it could have been is this supported by substantial evidence this fact finder made a different inference and and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion so really comes down to the standard of review mr de hard testified to well if you don't have to accept that as being truthful but i don't believe that that indicates that they were going after man i'm not sure i'm not sure your honor i i don't know why they didn't say i don't know what the circumstances i don't for example there were not and didn't live with men well so that's something that's distinguishable so you would the the question about why he seemed to be why mr the hardest interpretation was that he was singled out for worse treatment by the cartel and i'd like to know that the man from some peak probably had the worst treatment  a noted is that he's only specific knowledge or is only knowledge specific to mr de forest case was based on his interview with mr g harding while he had lots of knowledge about the all i believe it was just focusing on the the fact that his expertise was more of a general nature where as mr g heart and it was and he did have specific knowledge with respect to what had happened to m of the navy there's also evidence record evidence different articles that are submitted that talks about how the navy is really sore in mexico sort of the government and its going after the the cartels are responsible the area the cartels seem to be scared and they use that objective evidence to find that mr g harding had not met his burden to demonstrate some straight the requisite acquiesce had any interaction with there's there's really an absence of any sort of state or local official not having some sort of involvement with the cartel so here again it goes back to the standard of review while another fact finder may finds that substantial evidence supported it while another fact finder could have found in mr and he hires favor that conclusion is not dr shirks testimony their records so a couple of things the record shows that mr sure dr sure didn't just review evil each owes declaration and said the declaration and the testimony again shows his testimony about the alternative explanation for their fear of the navy which is is quite striking on the record the constant going into the grove and having my down and be covered and he said that  might be due to the navy working for a rival organization and i did pressed him on that point specifically and he did say i'm speculating to the extent that i don't have i don't have intelligence or big information about the specific military garrison in question he then explain why he would draw an inference from the country conditions that that was true given that he admitted he didn't know that why couldn't the i b a just say i'm i don't draw that  inference isn't that permissible under substantial evidence you know your honor because he said i don't know the particular military garrison that was following them around that your honor if you go down about fifty six lines on that page of the transcript it specifically says i'm i'm speculating because i don't know the exact military garrison but i'm not speculating about this i have personally seen cases he says where they have gone to back away to hear about the country conditions as a whole and that you know different tribal criminal organizations better rely on the mexican government but he's drawing an inference from the general knowledge to this specific situation and that was with the idea refused to go along with that and why do we have to entrance here yes your honor for two reasons st because he provided specific examples of firsthand knowledge so when we talk about speculation that's when it's based on nothing here he has an objective a conclusion that he's reached based on his experience and also because the country conditions reports support him the national this is really on stage is to forty three of the record through to forty seven and i'll hit the highlights real the national defense federal police and hundred numbers are suspected of being involved in disappearances a r two hundred and forty four so when the immigration judge cherry picks pieces of the country conditions evidence and says i decline to follow what the country conditions expert says because i believe you're speculating