it please the court jonathan ressler pointed counsel for petitioner i would like to reserve three minutes for about a petition or put himself at risk by cooperating with the u s government against members of the knights temp activity he got caught that's exactly right doing illegal things and he bought his way out of a lot of time in prison by cooperating which is not unusual something we like about well the fact that he is a cooperator is what's relevant and the reason why he cooperated doesn't diminish what the cartel would like to do said that he helped out the united states go back you know he came off  my client helped the united states and here you know come on i don't mean to imply that he was what you didn't mean to imply exactly that's go back and listen to that you know watch the tape and watch yourself step up to the lexan and that's relocation in this case the v b i expressly said that that was not any reasons why it was denying relief and the government dredged relocation issue at all they addressed it only in so far as they said they weren't they weren't throwing out right so if we were to agree with you would have to where this court was able to determine based on the record that there wasn't anywhere that it would be feasible to relocate the petitioner to and we think that this record shows at least that the drug cartels have intelligence now looking to make finding board we think that this court certainly would have the option to remand it back for just a determination on the relocation element but we think here that the v i i expressly said that was not a reason why it was the nine relief and that there's two elements of the cat claim here the first element whether or not there's substantial grounds for believing petitioner would be in danger the second element is whether or not there's official acquiescence we think that the only reasonable conclusion is that petitioner established both elements of his claim and is therefore entitled to cat relief so what do you rely upon to support your care there's a numerous a country conditions evidence on the record here there's the state department country report which reports of pages twenty five and fifty one of the administrative record that local officials act directly on behalf of  the drug traffickers in mexico including the powerful cartels we have other news stories an expert analysis on page eighty seven eighty eight that discuss that there is widespread impunity and corruption throughout mexico does that mean that you never can have a cartels and at least in those circumstances we think that there in mexico there are substantial problems and at this present time at least is the time that the state department country reporting the record here there clearly was official acquiesce local officials are known to facilitate and participate in the kinds of activities that petitioners afraid of which is being killed for cooperating against the cartel because he was a cooperative yes is sufficient in this racket to support the  day fifteen he says that these most powerful cartels including the knights templar is one of many names have intelligence networks throughout mexico and that there aren't safe places within mexico we think that the state department country reports supports that that report shows that even in places like of this record at least there's no evidence that there's anywhere and the government hasn't pointed to anywhere in mexico where petitioner would be able to safely redo ok i think what it really depends on is how bad they want to get him yet i mean if they're if they're really intent on killing this man make to them but they've not decided question that's right your honor it seems what you're saying to me is that any body who was cooperative who was ratted out of these people automatically would be at risk or that person would return i agree that that has been developed on appeal at least in this record we think there was enough evidence below to show that that there is nowhere where these next and cartels when they want to seek out a cooperator can find it and in the other cases that we've involving people who have cooperated against the next in cartels and we have about a half dozen cases that we've mentioned the federal courts have by the recognize that corruption is widespread throughout mexico and haven't suggested that there's any safe havens and nor does the state department country reports  i mean that's exactly what the agency addressed here regarding the likelihood of torture and the number of factors that the agency went through regarding whether or not he would be he was going to be approached the the two co defendants who are actually back in mexico have made no efforts to contact any family anyone there's just been complete silence since the sentencing regarding any threats when  this was going on in the district court when the criminal proceedings were going on there were some threats made from giovanni and domingo the two kingpins and all that seems to have completely stopped after the sentencing well there's an italian maybe sicilians saying revenge is a dish best eaten cold that's certainly one conclusion that could be drawn from this record be the agency did not draw that conclusion it made a different finding and this is this case really boils down to the cartels awareness of petitioner and what petitioner did and that really goes to how interested they are in him well they're aware of what's happening in court today presumably they can find that what this is all about right in theory that increase the risk that he would have that he's argued this case before the that i know that maybe that seems ridiculous but that's that's really the point in this case a petition wants to point to general evidence of the car and the cartels exact on cooperators and ignore the specific evidence in this case the cartels are he made threats against him while he's in detention here going to the point that came up earlier of the reach of this cartel might be in the united states in fact it is he was in there working for this cartel in the united states he was threatened in the united states what do you think a person who does cooperate against a person cooperative we know is a bad person so they do the threats against them the government took caution to protect them i guess on a number of occasions they relocated within the prison system so it was serious stuff when do you think a situation like that would justified not returning somebody to mexico if not this case that i can answer that would be up to the agency would require more facts than what we have here guy was really threatened they would notice as they were letters they relocated and i mean to me a rich history here this person seriously being threatened i don't think he's faking it i've not an agency didn't think he was faking it but they stopped the threat stopped they stopped in twenty fourteen or now it's now twenty seventeen and it was threat yesterday you would take a different position perhaps if that were the facts and also the point is these threats came from individuals in the united states they didn't come from anyone in mexico petitioner's starts a fear of harm of torture in mexico but where's the evidence in this record that anyone in mexico has any idea who he is it's  this is about awareness about connecting what he did in the united states to someone in mexico who is aware of him who seeks to harm him who act on that and that harm will rise to a level of torture that's the matter of j f f it's specifically where the attorney general has said that this chain of speculative events is insufficient that the petitioner must prove every link in that chain more likely than not he can't simply point to well i'm a coop or cartels in mexico harm cooperators therefore i've met my burden of showing it more likely than not that i'll be tortured in mexico but there's evidence here there's all sorts of reports about the likelihood that possibly happen is generically yes but but they can't claim requires particular lies to her individual ised evidence but your only argument is that the threat just not that they weren't made this is  they were in the united states yes there were no documented threats from mexico that's correct that's the entire that's that's the whole argument the in terms of the mexican thing is there's no connection there's no evidence at finding yes yes your honor that's right looking at everything together it doesn't compel looking at this evidence it would have been a permissible inference to draw that he will be harm that certainly could have been something the agency decided here but it didn't it looked at the specific evidence in this case the fact that co defendants the kingpins are still in prison and the fact that became the co defendants who are in mexico have done nothing made no contact none of his family anywhere has been contacted threatened harmed cetera and drew the inference that he has not met his burden of showing it more likely than not that he will be tortured in mexico and so the broader connection that i'm drawing is the evidence in this case is generic in mexico is simply that cartels harm cooperators and that's really what the board is drawing out or by looking at these particular facts the cartels farm cooperators and simply because he's a cooperator does not mean that he's met his burden of showing it more likely than not that he'll be tortured and looking at the specific facts that doesn't compel the conclusion that he will be tortured more likely than not in mexico findings that the da made that these co defendants had direct ties to mexican drug traffickers that they shipped money back and forth and were constant communication with them there's petitioners testimony that there was a branch office so most yes but these were the two members who had been signed up and there were threats from the two cartel members the petitioner hasn't been in mexico since he was ten years old so he himself has not been threatened in mexico there's a lot of ways in which you could have from mexico there could be threats against a family in mexico he could be messages against them wrongly suspected those threats had been transmitted to michaux a con and then that defendant's family sent a message back saying you better not cooperate because the cartel will end up killing you and harming us and he made clear that he wasn't  initial reports made very clear that all of the money was going back in the proceeds and we're going back to mexico and the drugs are there so these were not american these were these were mexican cartel members who came to the united states and we think that that the only reasonable conclusion when mexican cartel members put out a hit on you is that the cartel itself in the code of conduct of the cartel says that they will take action against cooperators and we think that those there's substantial grounds to believe that petitioner is at risk of being harmed finder would be compelled to find that substantial grounds exist for finding that petitioner is in danger of being tortured in that country just as courts have done in other cases involving cooperators against these very dangerous mexican cartels thank you