your honour's back in one thousand nine hundred four my client was placed into removal proceedings at that time they were called deportation proceedings actually and he was absolutely eligible to apply for section two twelve c relief at the immigration judge gave my client who was in detention not represented at the time and absolutely incorrect statement of the law to question what you're telling me really but i at the time that that case may have been interpreting other sections of the law but at the time back in one thousand nine hundred four a person could continue to accrue time for eligibility a preview what a person an immigrant needed in order to qualify for two twelve c really back before the law changed before two twelve c was eliminated was seven years of lawful and relinquis before the laws changed in one thousand nine hundred six and with two twelve c waivers a person could even appeal the case if they didn't have the seven years a person could appeal the case and the time towards the seven years of twenty to fifty five the lopez velazquez case as my colleague suggested completely forecloses that argument but you do have two other pretentiously really good arguments one of which has to do with the two twelve c motion and the question of whether g actually ruled on his two twelve c motion and the b i a didn't address it under the circumstances what are we to do with that well i think this court should looking at the all the circumstances  goulden mr got on would have been eligible for the relief and i'm sorry i don't know if i'm addressing your your question exactly ok my question is is what putting aside for a moment the request to amend the twenty two forty one petition there are two other avenues which i think are in compass within your pleading one of which is the original twenty i'm sorry to twelve seen in motion the the i g did not rule  can potentially we're not sure the record doesn't is not clear on that but the b i a clearly didn't address it under the circumstances what do we do with that we send it back could there be a to consider the petition in the first instance well i mean i think so your honor i think that would be the thing to do because my client even attempted to file a motion to reopen it's in the transcript of the hearing and it didn't for some reason it didn't make it into the record he was on represented he tried to that one either we need to get you some new legal materials i think so anyway that's a case that changed the definition of what needs to be shown when you have a membership in a particular social group and changed it from one central reason to was a reason ok so you're honor now you're talking about the withholding for mobile exactly i'm just moving to the next issue reason for that is his imputed political opinion ok but remember what we're talking about here but aha straw man no changes so it isn't it is no longer one central reason it's just a reason which makes it easier for your client right so what do we do with that well i mean i think that the record is has enough evidence for the court to remand the case to the  instructions that the application for withholding of removal be granted parties are considered and if you stand that when when when they haven't evaluated it under the crack standard in the first instance ok i agree they would have to do that you're correct your honor it would it would be it could be remanded for them to for the be i hate to review the case under the proper standard that would be the thing to do  reinstatement of removal and the subsequent proceeding that he's in right now are all tainted by that original deportation which i would argue was was not  think that the proper you know i would be ok we would be you know contempt of the case was remanded to look at the withholding of removal case but i think that what should really happen is that the case should be remanded so that the court as your honor suggested is that all right yes no no that's fine you're going to say the rest of your time for now we'll hear from government deported and he was in withholding only proceeding i can almost not hear you talking just a little he was in withholding only proceedings these are the type of proceedings where the immigration judge can only consider withholding of removal under the act and protection under the convention against torture so when the defendant tries tried to raise it to twelve c s u in those proceedings the immigration judge properly informed him that the correct action was to file a motion to reopen with the good immigration judge if i understand the record correctly counsel did not rule on the two twelve's the motion even if he said it was correct he didn't rule out a right not to be i didn't consider it correct because it was not before the immigration judge in the withholding only proceedings immigration judge did issue some sort of an advisory if these were before the court that they were not valid due process claims but because they were not actually before the immigration judge and that withholding only proceeding the b i a did denied that's not part of the record here it is referenced in the record that defendant did not appeal that denial of the motion to reopen to the board of immigration appeals yet he did include it in his opening brief to this court not properly before the court but even if it was the defendant's not eligible for too tall to see relief and he became to be eligible for to toss the relief you have to have seven years of lawful domicile in the united states as either a lawful temporary resident under section two forty five day or a lawful permanent resident let me be sure i understand the government's argument on your saying that while nothing happened at this particular time the motion was later on brought before the i j a it was the night and he didn't appeal it is the act that's correct and so that's not before the record and we may not be we need not be concerned about the two twelve c issues that your  that now what your position about how strong metal right that's a standard has changed and might make a difference in this case would it not the standard has changed but i don't think it makes a difference the there is no evidence of a in this case to a particular social group that the particular social group that was articulate in this case is strongly they going to tell us it's the defendant's wife's family at some point they even included a brother in law's sister in law in this group this is not a particular social group it doesn't meet the requirements for particularities and social distinction immigration judge didn't actually address that point she basically said that even assuming this was a particular social group there's no evidence that the defendant or anyone else was harmed or targeted on account of their membership in that group and that's one of the problems with well but but what do we do with the fact that the cia's and now us has relied on the the record and then we'll talk take a look at what they say about stickler social group i think looking at the evidence in the record it's clear that there's there wasn't one central reason it wasn't one reason for the harm they are no one knows the reason why these people were targeted mexico and two you want to are violent places the the case law is clear that generalized violence is not a does not create romeril to the facts in the record is that correct that's one way the court can go about it and the immigration judge denied it on several bases so i think that you could deny it you could affirm that part of immigration appeals on the nexus ground you could affirm on the fact that the defendant was able to relocate within mexico we could affirm on the basis that how do we know that that he's able to relocate within mexico where their findings in the record that suggested that would have been possible and he could have avoided harm yes your honor that all of the harm that was cited by the defendant and testimony and the other evidence was related to what you want to as one city in mexico it's a big country that defendant could relocate to another area within mexico i understand that but just my question is did the i g make a determination that because the petitioner is from quanah they could go to some other place that a cruise or some other place and he say yes she did say that he could realize within mexico never be reasonable to do so in this time i'd like to address a little bit the relation back issue actually because when my client originally filed his before you do that you heard what we said about eligibility for two twelve c and one nine hundred ninety four that's not our normal practice so we can read the case and let my colleagues want that i think we will respectfully prosecution that my client in his petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel actually i'm his defense attorney helped him fill out the form for the petition and selected to file under twenty two forty one which turned out to be incorrect also but if you look at ground three and this is in my opening brief in case number thirteen dash five six to a five the petition for the original petition for corpus is attached and on ground three the petitioner mr galvan who was then in pro per address is the issue of the prior deportation order which he alleges it was a flood and that is the issue that when when mr government amended the petition to be coming under twenty two fifty five that was the that issue was raised it was maybe raised a little amended petition under twenty two fifty five should be accepted by should have been accepted by the district court in the interest of justice and also because the argument raised in the twenty two fifty five the amendment relates back to an argument that was was raised in the twenty two forty one condition your time is up we appreciate your argument for both counsel and i think you just are you just admitted thank you very much you very much