good morning your honour's may it please the court mardis proper petition adelia giro in light of recent case law of the circuit court we ask the court remain the case so the agency may properly evaluate petitioners claim specifically and and bring those sessions bring us the sessions in this case the agency agreed with the immigration judge the petition of fail to meet her burden of proving all the elements to establish eligibility for asylum withholding cat there is no issue as to the fact that she was found credible by both the board  issues in relating to the well founded fear future persecution of withholding and kept specifically first the mexican government's ability and willingness to protect petitioner from the drug cartel second her feeler to prove that it would be impossible for her to safely relocate to mexico third her failure to report her husband's family's conduct to the police in mexico in forth that she overall failed to establish objective leave reasonable fear of future persecution without going through all the details of this case there are a few critical facts that that immigration judge essentially downplayed specifically petitioners husband is a blood relative to a nefarious family based on how the skull they had deep seated ties to the founders of the guadalajara cartel who are still very active in the drug trade a special agent of the da petitioners husband petitioner herself and their three children were learned to the us by the da with tourist visas upon arrival the husband became a confidential informant betraying his family he provided them with detail information about their intricate connections to the guadalajara cartel as well as vivid descriptions of the murder he put his family at risk by doing so by cooperating with the da and as a result of his cooperation three major cartel heads who were convict convicted in mexico for the murder of the special agent although they have been since been released by the mexican a but that was what was a mystery to me is i'm not sure exactly what happened as far as the immigration judge as the story goes from the response testimony that at one point in two thousand the respondents uncle who was part of nefarious family put a hit out on him and so his response was rather than go to the police he went to the dea agent who was helping the family the dea agent provide him with money for a gun and he got into trouble for having the gun and he was eventually deported i believe he had a number of gun charges and he was deported for those who had he been a war lived in mexico for a considerable period of time he's been deported since two thousand and six but he's been hiding in mexico the entire time your honor he's been approximately between a thousand to eleven hundred miles away from how these go he doesn't have any contact with his family but for two of his siblings the family has completely turned their back on him and he's essentially living as a prisoner in mexico in hiding just just out of curiosity if if if the husband was the the informer and he has been in mexico since two thousand and six and he has not been harmed why would we want to think that she if she returned to mexico that she would be harmed i get your honor as i indicated he has he's not freely living open in mexico he's in hiding from his family he's waiting any day he's the son testify that he's very depressed he hardly leaves his home and he's just basically waiting for the day of reckoning for the cartel will kill him and will find him so it's not like he's able to freely live a normal life in mexico he's been very fortunate so far that he's been able to be in hiding but he is not freely living there was that evidence presented before the immigration judge the testimony of the son in the respondent herself ok the children who are also part of a proceeding with the respondent in two thousand and two were also deported to mexico with the respondent because in two thousand i'm sorry two thousand and twelve she was physically removed from the united states by ice authorities with her two older children who were mexican born and they were all sent to mexico the children are still there we're not denying that fact the fact that the children have managed to survive in mexico does not refute her claim of persecution aster her children are not similarly situated to the petitioner first her blood relatives of the family that she fears and she's not secondly the daughter is a deaf mute and the son who is there with her as her primary caretaker the respondent does the petitioner doesn't have any of those factors that shield or protect her from the ruthlessness of the people that she fears none of these factors as in limby ins no evidence in the record suggest that her children are similarly the situated to her or that their sim there's subject to the similar risk nothing in the record supports an inference that their safety will ensure safety for her according to the record when she was in mexico in two thousand and twelve petitioner's has been cousin and warned her that there was going to be a shoot out where she was staying and that she should not be in the same location as the children so to protect them she left from her testimony it appears that the children are in danger whenever she or the husband are present but not necessarily independent of them we can't go into the mind of the persecutors as to why they would harm their own for the blood relatives but at the end of the day it is their nieces and nephews and they don't have that same familial tie with her so there is no reason why that would protect her at all as far as the government's ability to protect her the record is replete with information to show that corruption still exist in mexico it's very much alive in magic all the holder which the id to distinguish from this case and the subsequent cases of this court stresses the importance of examining the efficacy of the government's efforts to stop the drug cartel violence not just the willingness of the national government to do so in those cases the car the court called into question the mexican government's ability to control one of the cartels and yet this i j and the board base its finding on this very record that's replete with evidence of widespread corruption at the local level of the police level after reviewing the country reports from two thousand and nine that this court relied on  es that the country part cited by the immigration judge concluded the mexican government has been largely successful breaking up cartels and is taking necessary steps to reform the country's police force and judiciary but what they fail to mention is that in that same record that they relied on the congressional report shows that the kingpin strategy to take down the top cartel leaders has actually created an escalation of violence it's more expensive more volatile and less predictable the i j a would have us believe that after somehow things in mexico have changed so tremendously that you can no longer doubt the mexican government's ability to control the cartel and that is just wrong additionally when the responded states of the markets everywhere that she doesn't feel safe to live in mexico she's not being unreasonable for this fear she's right to be afraid while we recognize that the national government mexico is trying to eliminate the police corruption and the drug cartels this is very much an ongoing effort rather than a completed reform for the us this court found that the country report  identify a safe place for individuals to become targets of drug cartels in the police and it's the exact same situation in this case and just briefly on or as far as for failure to report her husband's family's activities to mexico the immigration judge and the board expect her to report her fear to the police who is corrupt the local police in mexico to identify herself and let them know that she's there when she's supposed to be in hiding and that she's afraid of what would happen to her this isn't reasonable to expect of her the board expanded their finding it relying on the judge as based on the holder which also this court has found creates a gap in proof requirement for her to show that she although she didn't report it is her burden to establish that there's credible evidence to show how the government would have acted and i want to reserve my time thinking on her i'm sorry just for a correction on the record positions counsel said that she wasn't aware why the husband was removed from the united states if you review the immigration judge's decision it says that he was removed from the united based on her has been status as an informant or on a general strike in the country because the mexican government has shown that it is willing and able to protect her and she can safely and easily relocate with her family and mexico do you  husband is in hiding and the press is waiting for the next fall and giving her testimony that she doesn't really see him i don't know or communicates with i'm not sure how we can guarantee that he that she knows this information to be true or cancun but there's also testimony in a record that shows that he's been to visit his kids in just angeles go there's evidence that he's going to go visit his own brother who is supposed to be one of the members of the family that are supposed to be hunting him down and he actually lives with one of his brothers in mexico and he's been between can coon and mexicali so it's not that he's in complete hiding he's moving around he's visiting people so i'm not sure how accurate his fear is and terms of remaining in mexico he could be depressed but well i mean it's clear that this testimony is taken as a credible and he's now situated in one fixed place and he's not out in the open generally i mean that seems to be undisputed but i mean he can't move and he can't see somebody but what he's going to just go to visit his own brother these are the people that his family members are supposedly so you want to at least go once and that i mean that doesn't that's not inconsistent i don't know i think if i was in a fearful of that fearful of the drug cartel i wouldn't step in a city where all the members of the family are still residing he also has family members that are there the petitioner has repeatedly   her kids for two years i mean you can you can you can challenge where they are living or where they're not living but her testimony was that the mexican cartel can get you anywhere if that's the case all of her family members that still live there in mexico her children her two children in mexico she has a son that testify that travel back to mexico on three or four different occasions that her husband has been living there since two thousand and six if this is true if the cartels reaches that deep and that strong somebody at least one person in a family should have been threatened and i'm saying the testimony in this record consistently show that for the most part that the she has not been threatened at all she has received any threats before she came to united states one hundred eighty seven and she haven't received any threats up until now i would also like to state that the record evidence the country condition evidence about the ability to control in addition to what the immigration judge laid out about the willingness and of the  advances the gains that have been made there's additional evidence in a record that shows that the juarez killings are down forty percent in two thousand and eleven there were improvements seen in cities worst hit by organized crime there being greater efforts to control violence made in two thousand and eleven the cartels are increasingly finding it more difficult to operate due to the collaboration of the multiple law enforcement and cities that are working together just like with the immigration judges are different to th being fearful from the beginning two of them have been incarcerated back then and two of them are deceased and she hasn't listed or named any particular cousin that she claims that she fears has approached her or breached her where they're at where they're living  located i'm not sure where the threat from them is coming from per se other than she's speculating about potential harm the the immigration judge also did not air and require her to establish or provide evidence to support the gap in her evidence from failing to report any any harm or wrongdoing to the police petitioner has not established past persecution sort of burden remains on her just stop you on that point there seems to be some collision in both the cases and the b i a s rulings on reporting to the police because on the one hand they say well it's not required to report but the fact that you didn't report report and this type of accident happened or you can use other incidences that maybe somebody else reported that's not a higher burden it's just a matter of trying to fill that gap and the fact that she didn't present any evidence to show that it hasn't happened to anybody else just leaves undermines her claim that the government is unable or unwilling to protect or the sheer fact that she's been protected all the time she herself has been in mexico rick can't be sure how many times but based on the record we know at least six months at a minimum of six months but again due to the vast number of family members and if you have eleven siblings that are there i mean that i think will threat to anyone and not to mention that the incidents that give rise to our fear of harm happened thirty thirty some years ago as for the her ability to safely relocate and that it's reasonable to immigration judge looked at all of these factors with regard to her not alleging all anecdotal evidence or evidence of personal knowledge of somebody else she knows that may have actually filed a report and it's happened to that person that doesn't that doesn't require any extra burden on her it's just simply filling the gap where the failure of her to file left open to undermine her claim in terms of safely being able to really relocate petitioner has she's fifty four years of age she has an extensive amount of family that still lives in mexico  facts that are presented i mean the minds of acquiring minds can decide differently but the fact that this case is being evaluated based on a substantial evidence a record the court is is required to accept the board's decision as true and that she has presented evidence to just a couple brief points your honor first of all as far as her two thousand and two application it was her testimony that in two thousand and two she was desperate to fix her situation she realized she was out of status with her tourist visa things weren't looking good for the husband and she went to a notary or an atari to unknowingly trying to fix her situation who was then working with an attorney who rather than exploring her ability to file for asylum or pursue that claim withdrew the application and just filed for cancellation of removal so there is the respond and it was ineffectively assisted by the attorney who helped her in the two thousand and two case additionally her credibility is not in dispute here it is very clear that although the case in madrigal deals with the set us this case deals with the cartel and that is what the husband testified against when that's who he turned on basically turned his back on this case is unique in that for her requirement to report what was going on it really doesn't make sense for her to report it to the mexican authorities because the threats occurred here the husband's activity was already dealt with by the da it was fully investigated by the da the investigation led to arrests and convictions and even murdering of some people in mexico by the mexican authorities so it really doesn't make sense for her to then have an obligation to go to mexico and report with are already dealt with by the da in this country and with that i submit your honor thank you thank you thank both counsel for the arguments the case of the cho of versus sessions is submitted