the washington nationals moved to d c area and that's when i really first started paying attention to baseball hadn't really played it as a kid i grew up in the d c area there was no big baseball team i played a ball i played football  talking about family connections to asylum cases the strike zone is all over the place this court has told the b idea in immigration judges your strike zone is too small you need a bigger bigger strike some and yet they still haven't changed it now maybe this case was decided before some of the other cases that the court has has really taken the b idea to task on it in the didn't have the court's guidance when they decided these cases but that's where we are this case really focuses on at least one reason for the my client's persecution in honduras was his family membership in and relying heavily on the cressman case which i'm sure  while familiar with long you're one of the judges that was on the panel for that kids would you argue then you bring uneatable question would be is there anything anywhere in your record or you agree where you there was one attack in two thousand and two that was the first attack or where were mr salgado sosa hit the guy with the television set with the with piece of wood then then they reported that crime the father has his stepfather was shot twice and punched four and after they had gone to the police and after they identified people won't they they came to the house this time my client his family knew they were coming and there was a shootout essentially own that happened and then they moved in then they went to another location in honduras where they stayed for a while they heard there were more threats they left that location in order to protect the stepfather's parents who they were living with because they didn't want the gangs coming there to come out and they moved again after that then my client was working for hertz he was well off the road no he didn't say and he doesn't know that that was part of the persecution but that may have just been an accident but in light of everything else he certainly while he admits it may have an accident he's still very concerned about that that that was something else that was added to this and yes they were looking for him after he leaves there's not as many threats because they're not looking for him he was the one not only because he he hit the guy with a piece of wood which is what they were saying but also because he had done a five people in in in the police station and that there was testimony in court in the ministry of record there there are two different  luminary court hearing paperwork that you can kind of see that were translated for the immigration press the kreskin case was mention it during the hearing the immigration judge actually cited to the pressman case from when she was making her decision in this case i think that cressman changed the picture for him i think that that made him eligible to apply for asylum that his social group was more defined and that made it better and i think in like i argued in my brief and i are i argue here that that that makes that not looking at his particular social group not not looking at his failure to file within one year in light of pressman is a constitutional question of law the court did not follow the law the and i think that the night him equal protection of the law and that nexus requirement we would we have to remain for a determination as to whether there is a clear probability of future prosecution your honor i think in the normal course of of these cases is that these to future persecution arm that this is not a case that where it's only future persecution he's claiming he's claiming past persecution and that changes the regulations in the case law change how that the burden shifts to the government and the government has to prove that he won't be persecuted that's that's what would happen here what happened here was that the court said there's no nexus so we're not looking at it right i'm just saying there is the findings are not complete as of now that's correct they're withholding ok that's correct um i'm reminded of another case when i was when i was i was listening today and i'm looking at this case and i'm thinking about this case and i thought about camorra versus ashcroft i wish i had the site i don't remember the site off the top i have obviously as worse as ashcroft so it was before case was found by the immigration judge to have lied and even though the alien was found not to be credible and that's not the case here by the way my client was found credible soldiers witness also true here thomas warman's affidavit and i point to the administrative record page three sixty four is what i'm thinking of where where he talks about the intimidation of witnesses are were were thomas foreman's affidavit was was pretty detail in the types of persecution that he suffered in the types of persecution he would suffer if he was forced to return to honduras it doesn't so much talk about nexus but if they talk a lot about those those issues that i think are pretty important and i and i  i'm not sure the immigration court paid a lot of attention to it i think the immigration court made the conclusion early that there's no nexus so they really didn't get into much of the other stuff that they needed to get into to make a full decision  strike there is it is so hard to find a case in say and be able to predict what the court is going to do when you're looking at a case when and that finding just permeates and destroys any chance that he has a case when they when they just don't and this case he certainly proved there was an axis he carried his birth and this petition o think that this was a constitutional question because of the change not only in congress in the cool few thousand nine but also the twenty eleven decision by this court in cressman that opened up this particular social group that should have been argued a little bit better a clear probability of persecution on a case but on account of his membership in his in his family should he return to hunter that would that would be the issue that we would be or made as a specific factual finding that reason petitioner was being persecuted that a central reason was because his father wouldn't pay this or tax or whatever it's called i mean that factual finding when you put it in my memory but he finds that the two central reasons right are that the father didn't pay the tax and that the whole family was being persecuted or targeted because of the family's resistance i would think well right i mean this is exactly what we keep having to say in case after case if the agency is reading press into merrily it doesn't matter whether the father is being targeted for some reason that's a said a central reason for the persecution is that petitioners father refused to pay extortion you think that is wrong and contradicted by the record you want us to do that no i don't think that that's wrong and i think that is this is the sole reason this whole family son is son that's why for example he's at home when they come looking for small correct he's at home when they're with a rob the family yeah because that's his father that's why he's at home as that's why in the same place w gang willing willing was involved in the game no protection for him but he somehow made them very angry if they came after him you would say oh no they're after him because of his the fall because his falling terror association with the gang not protected but if they do that big connects his son to it is son some are is not protected because they're doing it for the father's reason may not be family member whether it was because the family member testified that's not protected or because the family member resisted the gangs or whatever whatever unprotected reason makes the gang go after the family member that's not the question the question is when they come for that person's whole family are they going after the rest of the family because about the first family member did i've said this so inelegantly you know what i mean and i just feel like that through line is really one hundred percent clear in our case is now we try to explain this several times well i'm not sure that line is exactly clear that asylum would protect a family member whose whole family is being robbed but it's not i don't think that's the that's the refusal to pay extortion was that is what generates that the animists against him and then they come because of their animals to him the farm in the way the family is involved because the exclusively that he was persecuted on account of familial ties under kreskin and that the reason his father was being targeted was not the war tax it was because of the testimony but i don't see how that changes the underlying you know family ties argument he did argue that he was being persecuted for family ties under cross and right he already knew that he was being persecuted for family to us and the immigration judge said that was not  roberson you have a few minutes save the united states and this honorable