good morning good morning will you be making all the argument i will ok so you have ten minutes total i think you may please the court my name is manmeet soni counsel for petitioner mr saif al islam with the court's permission i would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal this case is about mr islam and unrepresented detained asylum seeker who fears persecution on account of his political opinion in bangladesh the record evidence shows that mr islam is a dedicated and active member of the b n p the country's opposition party after the you are me lee came into power in two thousand and eight you want me lead in quoting his uncle who is a prominent and powerful leader tried to recruit honor what evidence have your client offered showing that his uncle was involved in any of the three attacks and then also this or any of it and that the bangladeshi government director acquiesced in honor we received this case we are appearing pro bono we received this case through the be a pro bono project now currently resides in massachusetts we will be working with that agency to secure pro bono counsel for for  respect to your second question judge callahan i believe it was to do with the bangladeshi government acquiescing because i think the police did every pore maybe not as speedy as he wanted and then i think your client left for a while and then the government helped him get back again and all of that so while i think you can because you have to in order to prevail here the record must compel your result correct yes so the statute it is whether the government is unable and unwilling to protect and this circuit has never construed that to require that every level or every officer of that's part of a government where a political opinion claim is raised go after or be a persecutor in involved in the persecution of the applicant and here in this case not powerful prominent member of the army league there's enough to suggest that these are in fact quasi if not government actors quasi government actors and the country conditions reports from the unit from the department of state in tw also points out that there is within the government there is lots of corruption as well as significant political violence in the country that the government has been unable and unwilling to control i have a question before you continue i understand that for the record so the immigration judge really focused in his examination on your client's uncle who wanted your clients property  and and my question to you is can the uncle's affiliation with the awami league facilitate this property acquisition does it or does it  honor the record evidence from mr islams testimony supports that that absolutely and in fact you know according to mr islam himself he testified his father passed away in two thousand and two he inherited that property in two thousand even according to the record evidence at the immigration judge did not probe november twentieth eleven is the first time the awami league members show up in a shop and attack there after there's a february two thousand and twelve report that mr islam files saying his uncle is about to make an emergency offense on him at any time and they're after we have two more harmes against him each escalating that by the time the may two thousand and twelve attack happens he is seriously injured what's your best case for the proposition that because the uncle is a prominent member of the political party in charge that that that makes this actors where they are right with sorry just to get clarification because i think that the facts are not great on governmental unwillingness to  protect him or that it was that the government basically condoned the attacks and so i gather by your argument and the i think the parties filed twenty in this case that you're trying to move this case to the area where these attacks are actually done by government actors and so what's the best case that you have that stands for the proposition that membership in a political party that's in power his his position against the bangladeshi government and in fact in his case the attackers were the opposition party belonging to the awami league when the awami league was was was in the opposition at that time in that instance he had suffered three instances of of of harm and each of those harms took place after he'd protested the other on his political opinion and there after other family members had also been threatened and he was this that case i believe supports here that his uncle and the leagues are in fact quasi government actors in that case as well the got the court found that the government was may please the court calm talker for the attorney general i suppose we'll just dive right in i'd like to start with the court's ok with the discussion of nexus this is a case where it's very important to be mindful of the distinction between harm inflicted on account of political opinion and harm arising from conflict between parties who have political opinions the latter without more is not sufficient to make a claim for saddam or withholding of it now the court needs to that there are two divergent threads of harm that they have to follow in order to completely resolved this the first is the conflict between petitioner and his uncle which evidence shows was which the evidence shows a rose from a dispute between those two parties  well that i chase seem to be seem to be more persuaded by and i mean i think that you could make the argument was somewhat dismissive of his claims that the that the property dispute and you know all of that so i think that there's one one specific instance of testimony in which that's true your honor and i think the reason for that is because the petitioner when he first described his claim to the customs and border patrol made no mention of his uncle harming him on account of his political opinion he mentioned only the land dispute from that point forward i think if you look at the testimony as a whole the petitioner had more than enough opportunity to set forth every motivation that he wanted to talk about he was repeatedly asked if he needed to add additional information if you had anything else that he wanted to say furthermore to me instance of testimony that i think may have caught your attention it's worth noting that when the immigration judge said so your uncle was once on you because of the land dispute petition was not required to agree with him he could have said no he could have then developed his test like he did that's the problem this is somebody who was appearing in pro se right and at multiple points in his testimony he tried to explain that he inherited land and his uncle wanted the land but his uncle's very powerful in the party and wants to kill him so you've got a across a petition or who is there's these two reasons and he wasn't able to articulate perfectly how the two ways and intersect the i j a who has a duty to develop the record keep steering it back to the economic motive brushed aside his mention of political basis for the attacks how how does that comport with due process in the i g is duty to develop the record i think you're right that the petitioner has a pretty tough record in terms of nexus but how do we know that he's unable to be valid that nexus that are happy a j fulfilled his obligation of developing the record for this petitioner your honor i think says and let's say that it's insufficient at this stage but if we conclude that there was a due process violation should we send it back to give the petitioner an opportunity to shore up an tough record right now on nexus but they've got a tough record on willingness to protect this well couldn't that be cured with the remained to press the due process your honor i think there could old always be additional evidence that could be submitted on we manage the question is whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to submit that evidence or to make those statements during the initial hearing the government's position is that he was not has there been any offer of proof of what w presented have there are there any servant any offer that he would have presented other instances not strictly speaking your honor and that's where project becomes an issue for the petitioner as well he's raised a number of i suppose hypothetical questions as to what he might have said had to be given a chance but he's never explained what evidence would have arisen from those questions being asked and the opportunity to do so is there he has always had the opportunity to file a motion to reopen or whil board to that filing he could attached an affidavit setting forth the evidence or the testimony he would have provided had he been given a chance but he's not done so so what evidence was is required to provide to show that members of the ruling  in order to show that the government was unwilling or unable to protect it he would have had show that the government was just regarding his complaints or was active in the persecution itself u government's view that's correct your honor that the government's view is that there would have to be some more formal attachment to the government apparatus and what's your best case for that i apologize when i don't have a case officer and for that i can follow up the court what's right i think one of the things maybe both argue this differently but he had to pay he didn't get to come back into the country and i think twenty twelve he left in a new did get to come back  but he also had to pay a bribe gidney to get back and i'm not familiar i don't believe that that's in the record your honor ok i thought i saw it somewhere in the  having to pay a bribe to be out of the country does not necessarily mean that the government would be unwilling or unable to protect someone from persecution i think there's a distinction between looking at ways you could say well yeah if you're going to really help me out why you make me pay money to get back in i agree your honor and the fact that it cuts both ways i don't i think hurts the petitions case here because again the courts are aware of the standard of review the evidence must compel the conclusion that the government is unwilling or unable to protect and where it could cut both ways the evidence does not compel one conclusion or the other honor with respect to the government unable and unwilling the standard is whether in fact the government you know even where the petitioner has filed a police report what does that p agency do with that report is powerful evidence under this court's decision in a free v holder to determine how in fact willing and capable is the government to protect the applicant in here we have two instances where the applicant went to the police in fact when he went to his own local police he was denied they said that they weren't going to take a complaint because it was against the awami league well just i mean it just because someone can't solve a crime doesn't mean the government's not you know because we have a lotta you know just watch forensic files all the cold cases i mean there's a lot of you know it doesn't mean the government's not trying to they just might be very good at it except that in this case your honor the two instances of where he went to the police there's no evidence that the police ever went and followed up ever questioned or investigated his complaint and that is sufficient to deter to to stablish an able and willing in the fact that the well it could be substantial evidence if you'd won but the question does the argument that they're making is the police didn't least take a report so you have to overcome compel the other result so that's what we have to decide if it cuts two ways to compel standard becomes difficult for you and if you were on the other side you know whether it's supported by substantial evidence then it can go you know that's that's what i'm saying and you know you have to consider our standard of review to sure but in this case your honor to uphold that i g s decision we would need the decision needs to be substantiated with reasonable and probative evidence in this case the immigration judge completely disregarded february two thousand and twelve report when he goes to the police and tells them that his life is under threat the immigration judge never questioned him about that theirs and only relied on the fact that he had gone to the police in may two thousand and twelve and they accepted a report the the government's position in the board's position is the fact that he went through the airport and the fact that the airport officials allowed him to travel through shows that the government is in fact has no interest in him but that's not the stand but you can't but parties always can say you know he could have said this or there was there or there was this and you know he's gotten way or now and i haven't heard anything along those lines well your honor in this this court i mean  do better on a redo when you lose let's hope we don't do it the same way no one doesn't the same way but a redo isn't the same as what they're you know telling us that there was something that was really left out that would  create a record that does not exist and that's in that in order to find prejudice we can rely on the circumstantial evidence and here there's an abundance of circumstantial evidence in the record instances where multiple instances with mr is m was trying to explain that his political problems are far more egregious and that that is the main reason for why he's fled bangladesh and the immigration judge never conducted the follow up with respect to that like to compliment we appreciate every one that comes to court of course but the court is always likes to state that you know when people do pro bono work it's when we have important issues before the court and someone is not entitled to free of charge counsel we appreciate that there are lawyers that are willing to develop the issues so that the court has a full record to decide the cases thank you you thank