court and the immigration and nationality act asylum applicants must establish that a protected ground was or would be at least one central reason for the persecution they faced or fear in their native countries this case present three questions concerning that requirement and unless the court prefers otherwise i would like to address them in the reverse order of how they were presented in the brief so i would like to address first why this court you joined the ninth circuit in holding that the one central reason requirement is not apply central reason analysis doesn't apply does now so it seems to me that it's more logical perhaps for you to tell us why his religion was a reason or at least why there was  a decision was clearly wrong on that it sure well we certainly think it was if not a central reason certainly a reason to begin with the immigration judge found my client credible so his testimony must be taken as true what i'm worried about in this case and you know these cases are are very sympathetic i don't mean to suggest but on the law what i'm worried about is that all of the evidence of religion is on his side   the words he's saying i'm not going to join the gang because their religion what is the evidence on the other side that shows that the gang was motivated by his religion i think we've got to look at that yeah and that was exactly his about to say immediately before the act of persecution took place the apparent ringleader of the gang said quote that he did not believe in anything and that it was better to be with the gang than to be a christian so our point is that gang members persecuted our client not just because he refused to question i think it's also very important to make clear the precise point at which my client was persecuted contrary to what the immigration judge the board and now the government have suggested my client does not claim that he was persecuted merely by being asked to join the gang his contention is that he was persecuted after he refused to join a gang so the question is not why the gang targeted my client for recruitment but why they forcibly tattooed him and threatened to kill him and his family after he refused and for the reason they just gave and we think his religious beliefs were essential reason we now think gang leaders statement about i don't believe in anything that was the third time the thinking had approached claims that's eight u s c eleven fifty eight and it is part of applicants overall burden of establishing that they qualify as a refugee which is a prerequisite for obtaining asylum with claims are governed by a different statutory provision eight c twelve thirty one b three which is not even mentioned the word refugee and which says that applicants must demonstrate that it protected ground would be a reason that their life or freedom would be threatened second and even more telling when congress enact of the real id act it declined to cross reference the one central reason why i meant in the provision governing withholding claims even as it cross referenced to neighboring requirements that were enacted at the very same time so specifically in twelve thirty one that a cross referenced clauses two and three now in matters e t l board acknowledged that congress did not cross reference clause one but it concluded that congress is failure to do so meant that congress was silent with respect to whether the one central reason requirement applied withholding claims as the ninth circuit recognized that conclusion was based on a false premise the fact that congress failed to cross reference clause one is precisely what demonstrates that congress did not want the requirement to apply and withholding given how clear the text of the statute is we don't think there is a need for the courts even consider the legislative history but should the court wish to do so we think the legislative history only bolsters our position the one sense or reason requirement is mentioned three times in the conference report and those references are on pages forty one and forty two of our opening brief each reference was made in connection with asylum applications the cost of court didn't contain a separate section on withholding claims in which it acknowledged the fact that central reason required so we think the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is that congress declined congress declined to incorporate the one central reason requirement into with holding provision now the attorney general argue that congress was somehow precluded from cross referencing clause one the one sent to restrict wire meant because it relates to the definition of refugee but if that was true congress could not have cross reference clause to which also relates to the definition of m when the text of the session is clear the mere fact that it might make life more difficult for the industry agency is not a reason to disregard that text the only instance when courts may disregard the plain text of a statute is when it would create an whether it qualifies one central reason is not which it seems to me you're making an assumption that it was it was a reason and what we think the record certainly supports that we yes that would be highly relevant but my applicant claims that he was singled out for persecution so people didn't he say he was singled out for recruitment i think both said they were singled out for recruitment there's a difference between recruitment and persecution as i was saying earlier the why the gangs were crude him is not relevant this case the only question is why the gang forcibly tattooed him and threatened to kill him and his family after he refused their advances so and  is that they only did that because he refused to subjugate his religious beliefs and the fact that he articulated his religious beliefs when he refused the gang's advances saying once they recruited them then why did they persecute exactly exact standard which is a lower standard and it and which the board has not yet had an opportunity you know generally a cart before the horse type thing because if there isn't reason for asylum then we have case after case that says you can't you aren't able to establish withholding removal yes but those cases never squarely confronted the question of whether of whether the next of standard is the same that is an open question in the circuit i understand yes question of law but if this matter of fact the issue would apply on remained the board would not have to find that we are compelled the border not to be compelled to find that religion was a reason the board the board our position that it be it would be applying to no review but even if it was the board under the ordinary should get the first at that apple the other claim that we raise with respect to the asylum claim involves the standard of review we believe that argument you're making now your honor we think that there is a valid i'll be a very narrow distinction that can be drawn between the question mixed motive cases what the persecutors various motives were on one hand which would be a question of fact and whether the protected ground was sufficiently important to qualify as a central reason on the other two which but the court went beyond that and said we you know it wasn't even a reason at all his affidavit also is very telling on the facts he said the gangs try to hard to recruit the students they want control in the schools they focus on the students because they're friends with other people other young people from other areas to increase their ranks his own testimony immigration court he said he didn't know why the gang to him they are two are not but maybe because he was a christian or maybe because he was from a different town he admitted the gang approached him because they wanted to encourage him for membership to twenty eight he said they wanted him to report information in furtherance of their activities he said they  recruit young males because they're young to thirty six his brothers testimony also helps the government's position he said gang targeted this brother of the petitioner because members in his world hometown kill each other and therefore  need more members eric to fifty so there's no there's really no evidence in this record of gang and i missed against christians there's no basis for distinguishing between when they gang targeted all or it's not disagreeing with that religion in fact the hypothetical i think would be helpful here if he had said at that time ok i'm not a christian i'm something else but i still don't want to join your gang  record reflects that he still would have been tattooed and and threatened because the gangs motivation was recruitment wasn't in amiss against christians i'm happy to talk about the us and matter  issues if the court does reach that issue under several step one we are able to determine congressional intent from the conference report in the record  report is very very telling it's the congress intended a uniform standard on mixed motive cases throughout the country it was dissatisfied with ninth circuit case law which had a lower nexus standard at least in part cited two pieces rio and ice and four ha if the court looks at that for hoc ace it applied to both asylum and withholding the ninth circuit applied at least in part to withholding and that  satisfied congress and so therefore it doesn't make sense that congress would have would have gone back to that lower a reason standard for withholding when it specifically cited for  its conference report the report says nothing about different standards for asylum and withholding those two standards those two reliefs historically have the same standard it would have been a the two and it said so nothing about it and if it were going to change this bork it would have said something the report congress spent three pages talking about the new one simple reason standard for asylum it didn't say anything about a reason a reason for withholding which would have been which would have been monumental but it found no research talk about the government as you saw on everything made to two arguments based on the text of the deal in the congress intended to do it right when the put it in the introductory phrase in a section that talks about credibility and cooperation they would have said it had it in the in general so the first  congress is assumed to legislate against that backdrop of settled law so congress could have put it in the withholding statute probably erred enough putting it in the withholding statute toward principles the supreme court and briscoe has talked about this if we look at that backdrop congress assume the next standards would stay the same for both areas say it's not a reason to tall congress had a rational basis for diverging between these two standards especially when specially when they they were dissatisfied with that bore hockey's in  in the ninth circuit and the lower nexus standard it doesn't make sense that they had a rational basis to do this ambiguous the court should find that the board's interpretation is reasonable and the courts should uphold it chevron is clear the agency has the authority to fill in any gaps in the in the a they've both recognized that the nexus finding the one central reason finding is factual and should be reviewed by the board is clearly erroneous and by this court  completely agree that the agency the agency was very careful in correctly applying turkson to the torture claim i would like to clarify  that's what the board said and so the board member used his independent judgment he did not cite to the i j a decision he did not say it was being reviewed for substantial evidence and so he said the threats and  constitute torture so so we believe the board actually did apply both standards under turks and correctly clear error for the likelihood of future motion first they remove all and ice has discretion on this issue and a very reasonable policy directive which ways which which in which it will would silicate return if the court decision led to the petitioner being a lawful permanent resident or if he's needed for his removal proceeding the government also notes there's no right to return in any statute so the government  decided stepping back for a moment to the asylum claim again why my client was recruited we think is a red herring all that matters is why he was forcibly tattooed and threatened with death both him his family were threatened because he refused to eat pork now if the applicant refused to eat pork simply because he did not like the taste of pork clearly a protected ground would not be a central reason why he was persecuted if the applicant refused to eat pork because doing so would violate his religious beliefs then we submit that his religion would serve if not as a central reason at least a reason why he was why he was persecuted put differently if congress wanted an alien's to qualify for asylum who are persecuted for practicing their religion we see no reason why lawmakers would want to deny asylum to aliens who are persecuted who refused to subjugate their religious beliefs if there are no further questions on the asylum itself it's a complex of factors which we think suggest that it did qualify as torture second in terms of the standard overview we think again apply the wrong sort of review with the board said the board said the likelihood of torture is a question of fact that with respect to our request that the court order the government to facilitate my client's return if rules in his favor on any aspect of this case we would just note that the court granted such a request in ramirez versus sessions eighty seven