good morning your honor is and may it please the court my name is sabrina damascus and i represent the petitioners in this matter i would respectfully request to reserve four minutes for a bottle keeper on the plug over the lp yes your honor thank you your honor is the agency's decision in this matter should be reversed for four reasons st jose sr the persecutors allegedly violent nature does not undermine the conclusion that he persecuted the petitioners on account of their memberships and their particular social groups secondly  honour's the lead petitioners ability to physically leave her marital home does not equate with the ability to leave her abusive marriage rd your honor with respect isn't that really her focus today is whether she was able to leave and what that means it is definitely one of the points because the board of immigration appeals determined that she was not if that in fact a member of her part of proposed social group and i'm happy to begin with that point if that's of th petitioners in laws shows an ability and a willingness to assist her to protect her from her abusive spouse and finally that the agency applied the wrong legal standard to both petitioners withholding every move all claims turning to your honor's point about whether or not to leave petitioner is in fact a member of her proposed social group the the board of immigration appeals essential relied on the idea that in two thousand and thirteen she was able to physically leave her marital home she went to to want to in order to take care of her ill mother and that that is sufficient to demonstrate she was able to leave her marriage your honour's this is contrary to the b i's own cases on this topic which i have submitted to the court specifically your honor i would point the court's to matter of c and matter of h r m both of which recognize that even when and a view spouse or domestic partner physically leaves the marital home if the abuser continues to threaten that person or to attempt to exert control over them then they have so and he told her that if he found her with another partner he would kill her he threatened her that he was now a member of a cartel and that he would kill her he told her she needed to return home to him and we choke on and when she said she tried to convince him not to come look for her and to wanna again he threatened to come after her these are all in the record your honor at page seventy and i and the judge recognized that after the lead petitioner went to to wanna her husband called her and s she tried to persuade him not to come he threatened to kill her if he found that she was living with someone else i think this in many ways is perhaps the most persuasive point threatening to kill your partner if you find that they have tried to engage in a romantic relationship with another individual is proof that the persecution was because jose sr was trying to keep her trapped in their marital relationship yawners i would also point to the decision in matter of i am e g which was one of the the court i think it's very illustrative on this point in that he you had an applicant who was unable to deliver to leave her domestic relationship for ten years when she resided with her abusive partner and when she tried to leave he threatened to kill her which is precisely what happened  in addition your honor there was no analysis by the way about whether or not in the ten years that she was residing with her spouse whether at any point during those ten years she was a woman on able to leave her  marriage this is a particularly important point because if it any point in that tenure she was being persecuted on account of her inability to leave her marriage then the agency would have to evaluate her application for humanitarian asylum because she would have demonstrated past persecution on account of a protected ground at some point and this is the matter of s p c case is very illustrative on that point you had an individual who lived with her abusive partner for seven years and subsequently she moved to her mother's home for two years prior to fleeing the country and even though she had been physically separated from her partner for those two years prior to leaving the country the b i reminded the case to the judge in order to determine if at any point during those seven or actually they did determine that during those to kill or otherwise injure the person that's all you need to do to have in order to remain in the group of others and they particular social group i think your honor that the the evidence has to as to establish that the abusive spouse was continuing to assert control over the life it is psychological control i mean what i struggle with i mean these are horrible cases we get lots of them as you know and the reality is that this person was able to where we have situations like that and i see a struggle with acceptance of your contention that vi is precedence to bind us on this that somehow well you have to have somebody who's actually physically left the relationship and is no longer physically abused as long as they get a phone call saying i'm going to kill you they still remain part of the group well you're either position it in this case i think you have more than a phone call so i wouldn't say it's my position i think you have multiple threats of death the use of intimidation by saying i'm a member of a cartel you also have if the person intimidatory but the spouse that's all you need right you also have here your honor that he retaliated by can beating his son even harder after his wife had left the home and that's on the record at page eight hundred and thirty two and that's in line with the decision of matter of h r m from the board which found that having an abused child with an abuser would make it difficult to leave the relationship even if the relationship was of a short duration and here we have a relationship of ten years you would rest particularly with respect to whether or not the be application of  the standard in terms of nexus the withholding claim was or was not harmless it's not harmless and either case your honor this case was decided by the be a prior to this court's decision and brought us romero and so they only cite the one central reason standard and determined that under the asylum analysis that the membership in the particular social groups is not one central reason for his ai's that he has a senior's persecution of his wife and son and then when they get to the withholding analysis they see police say having failed to meet the lower standard for asylum you failed to meet the higher standard for withholding without having analyzed whether or not the persecution may mean the protected ground may have been a reason for the anybody was untethered to a productive ground so i think there's two flaws in this one is logical and one is factual in the record i think the logical flaw in this is best illustrated with a historic example from real life so in nazi germany the s s engaged in a violent purge of the usa which was a rival police organization by all accounts the essay was made up of the same ethnic and religious demographics as the s s there was no belief that this was added a religious or ethnic lead based act of violence and yet i don't think anybody here would doubt that the s s engaged in systematic religious persecution of jews during world war two and so there's a there's a logical flaw in saying that a person who may commit acts of violence against others for reasons  protected ground therefore isn't persecuting anybody on account of a protected ground on the factual basis in the record here your honor is one of the things that the v a appoints to you to substantiate its conclusion that he's a generally a bad one person was they claim he was violent towards his own parents and yet your honour's if you look at  for one moment your honor i'm sorry page one hundred and ninety seven of the record which is where the lead petitioner actually testifies about the relationship between her husband and his parents she clearly says he never hit them that he was rude but he never physically lead petitioner and her children nothing about him threatening or harming them and his parents in any way so this factual conclusion is simply not substantiated in the record your honor your honor as i see i have twenty three good morning may please the court my name is margot neff and for the united states attorney general your honor is it is undisputed that the petitioners in this case experienced a terrible ordeal in mexico nevertheless they failed to establish their eligibility for asylum withholding of removal and protection under the convention against torture namely the record does not compel reversal of the agency's finding that miss acosta failed to establish her membership in her proposal group a respect to the next this issue which is all you have so in barajas the court looked at a case of mixed motives and said that whereas for asylum the standard is one central reason for withholding that's only a reason however is does not apply in this case because as the agency found this is not a case of mixed motives this is not a case where there was any record shows any motive was so ever any connection between the mistreatment that they experienced and their membership in their central reason were they say it wasn't a reason at all they may mention the one central reason standard because that was the standard at the time for both asylum and withholding of removal but if you look at the substance of the agency's decisions they say that there's analysis that would be required to determine but saying that he i mean saying that a person is generally violent does not negate the possibility that there might be a cases that show no motive at all and this case is similar to the tino as the agency found in that it's a case that has no motive mr martinez lashed out at whoever happened to be around him  make of councils point that the record is clear that he did not do that towards his parents so that there was a difference in how he was violent and perhaps you know the distinction between how we treat his parents and he would get drunk and get in fights in the street he also murdered someone when he was in prison in the united states and so although she did miss a cost a did not specifically testified that he attacked his own parents he was aggressive towards his own parents respect to them again it's she did indicate that he was aggressive towards them and she indicated that he was aggressive towards her stepfather in fact her stepfather they were living with her stepfather and he kicked them out of the house because mr martinez would go after go after his stepfather and again if you look at mr cost as mother's declaration he was violent towards for so looking at the two sides to the to social groups but st we have to look at the social group are unable to leave and if you look at the record it actually undermines their claim that mr martinez was motivated by their inability to leave in that when mr costin and isaac both left the home mr martinez did not react at all he did not pursue miss miss acosta he did not threaten her with any violence and similarly he did not he did not pursue isaacson's to be an overstatement that he didn't threatened with any violence did he threaten that if she entered a new relationship while she was in to want to he would  year without any violence she testified that although she had asked her martinez on the phone a few times he only asked about the welfare of the children doing during those calls furthermore after one year  him not coming in to try to get her back not threatening her in any way he did express his interest in coming to tijuana however miss acosta testified that he didn't in fact come in the one month period that she remained there and furthermore there's no evidence that he came at any time after that and they've not spoken they've had no communication cation since july th teen as you know opposing counsel cited a number of board cases in which she indicates that if i understood correctly for so long as the persecuting husband in this case continued to threaten whether or not there was physical violence that was enough to continue the membership in the particular social group even if the spouse is physically left what's your response to that well again the board decisions that she cites have no binding authority on this court but the reasoning with one and again those cases are distinct because there were there were attempts by the abusive partner to get the petitioner back in most cases throughout when they left and then after that and then the abuse partner was pulled back into the relationship these kids this case is factually distinct from that in that she lived for one year without any harm so the record would have to compel this is a factual issue the record would have to compel reversal of the agency's finding that based on these facts she was able to leave mr martinez she was able to live in tijuana many miles away for for one year safely with without any threats of harm which again is i factually distinct from the cases that i get together once he said also that the government's position is that even if there was a little play in the joints on that part of it that the reality is that the police did respond and find it but they did respond this is not a situation where the government of mexico simply is turns a blind eye to this is that correct that's correct this case is factually distinct from our c g where the police told the petitioner that they would not a sist her because they would not become involved with marital disputes in this case when mr costin's in laws called the police they responded they came to the home and they attempted to arrest mr martinez they were only unable to because position well it's it's unnecessary given the dispositive grounds that the agency relied on in this case the court could deny on those dispositive around saying if we send it back what would the government's position be on the agenc police were unable or unwilling to assist her as we discussed the police arrived at her home responded and attempted to attempted to arrest mr martinez accordingly the court should deny this petition for  view as it relates to mr costin isaacs applications for asylum and withholding of removal the court should also deny the petition as it relates to the petitioners applications for protection under the convention against torture substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that a mexican a mexican official would not acquiesce to any torture that they would experience upon their return accordingly the court to deny the petition for view thank you  heard your opponent i did your honor my esteemed former colleague and her excellent oral argument and your honors i'd like to respond to one point with respect to the issue of whether or not the persecutor reacted after his wife left him and then also turn to the issue of government inability to protect unless the court has other questions on the previously discussed matters it is one hundred percent clear and jose isaac's declaration at page eight hundred and thirty two that after his mother left his father his father beat him harder i cannot imagine for a woman trying to flee an abuser a more significant act to make her come home than to beat her children harder because she left he when he joined his mother within what two he should that play in our analysis here i think this goes back to the fundamental question if at any time during the ten years she was a woman unable to leave her marriage let's assume for argument's sake that at that six month mark when her son joins her and her husband no longer has the ability to beat him to control her and perhaps as you've suggested your honor that his death threats on the phone to her a month before she left if she should find a new partner is not sufficient control to show she was still stuck in the marriage just you know saying it is heart rending cases there's no question about that i'm not being flip when i ask you this but understand i don't know of any cases that we have or that are binding on us that say what you contend so that's why i'm trying to ferret this women in the group when they physically lead that's what i struggled well your honor is there's a lot of evidence in the record about the dynamics of domestic violence relationships including a report from a therapist treating the lead petitioner about how psychological coersion keeps a woman trapped in her relationship as much as physical beatings so i think that it would be inappropriate to devalue psychological coersion especially in the context of ten years of physical and sexual abuse leading up to it not to mention the psychological physical and mental harm she suffered from other individuals that left her conditioned as her therapist noted to not even be able to recognize the red flags of domestic violence in her life she'd been raped as a child by an acquaintance molested by her stepfather at her father attempted to poison her as a child i mean this woman was left in a position where she didn't understand that men could treat her well and i think that goes to the topic briefly your honor i just want to know two cases that should dispel the idea that merely responding and taking a police report which there isn't even evidence of a police report taken is sufficient to demonstrate that the government is able and willing to protect their is a matter of twenty two dollars i n n decision twenty three  to the scene of an assault but made no arrests quickly closed an investigation into a break in at the petitioners home and there was evidence in the record that the police in that country have bias against foreigners an ethnic minority as your honor i cannot cite enough places in the record which it is clear that d v laws domestic violence laws are not adequately enforced and that the police consider domestic violence to be a private matter but i'll just leave you with one with my remaining few seconds here there is page seven hundred and four of the record there is still insufficient understanding or acknowledgement by many senior officials particularly at the state level that violence against women constitutes a serious human rights violation and that the state has a rough spots ability to take appropriate steps to prevent it this is particularly true of violence against women by intimate partners in the family or in the home which is still wrongly portrayed as a private matter that's a direct quote your honour's again i hear you i agree this is a serious serious problem we have the problem here in the united states as you know we're no different than anybody else and that problem our problem at least i believe is that under the case law and under the new regulations deal i'm not finding authority to allow us to take the very important psychological sociological impact of these horribly abusive relationships as controlling and whether somebody is a member of a social group there may be individual instances where the role is so clear that there's no problem but but frankly women or so poorly treated in so many places and around the or well i'm going to i'm going to answer it with two different ideas that i hope will answer question one is in terms of the idea of women you know and this court specifically recognize recognizing the poor treatment of women as perhaps being social grounds i would point to the court's decision in perdomo versus holder where it considered that guatemalan women may in fact be a social group because of the pervasive violence against women in guatemala now more specifically to your honor's question about where there is authority for taking into account psychological harm for example i would point to the cat regulations or at the convention against torture regulations explicitly state that psychological torture exists right and it's defined as the threat of serious harm to the individual or to their close family members i don't think there's any doubt if you look for example at the case law on a hernandez that torture rises to the level of persecution so if psychological harm is relevant to the question of torture then i think it has to be relevant to the the question of persecution of women as well and that's why you make the claim about humanitarian if you will relief because it's torture to a degree that so shocking that it falls within our definition of humanitarian relief well so i think there is evidence in the record of sexual assault by the husband and that there are no hernandez would be passed persecution so i standing on or even if we let's suppose for a moment we assume that she did escape her relationship at the moment she left or at the moment perhaps her son left to join her the question remains if it any years during that and if he spent any time during the prior ten years when she was living with her spouse and he was abusing her physically and sexually and psychologically and he was abusing their children at any point in those ten years was she a woman unable to leave her marriage from your moment i mean your honor i would i would counter with the question of if a political dissident is jailed ten years ago because of his political activism and then he stops being a political activist and isn't jailed he still has past persecution on a kind of a protected ground even if his status as a political dissident has changed because he's no longer politically active maybe that goes to questions of are there changed circumstances that would rebut a well founded fear but that's also where humanitarian asylum comes into play if the well founded fear is rebutted by changed circumstances in the country of origin such as for example a woman's ultimate ability to finally leave her persecuting spouse did she suffer such significant harm in the past such as sexual abuse that it would rise to the level of qualifying for humanitarian asylum