torture death or persecution because he's a member of a minority religious group in a country that is run by hezbollah or one of the most dangerous and extreme terrorist organizations in the world the hearing what our primary argument is that the hearing in this case and mike my client was deprived of d process in his hearing in the immigration court because of a bias and extra judicial opinion forming by the judge who heard his  case as we lay out in the brief this jog from the very beginning in in the bond hearing and through the entire case referred constant late to connections ted you know tenuous all possible connections between my client and terrorism because of the conviction that he had despite the fact that the group of terrorists that she referenced several times and were included in some of the materials is the very group from which my client was seeking protection  r asylum withholding or ultimately the convention against torture and the way in which this bias influenced my client's  particularly clear when it came to the judge's determination of whether my client was barred from asylum a withholding of removal based on his conviction for what she did decided your client's conviction for cigarette trafficking was particularly serious jay was obliged to do that right yes your honor and when he did that the immigration judge said among other things that all participation in the black market runs the risk of supporting organized criminal groups and terrorist said it runs the risk of some of those kinds of activity that that's true that doesn't deny your client due process to say something that ike that that's true first thing she said in reference to my client when he appeared before her was some reference to whether there was going to be terrorism involved and all the way through wanted to avoid removal because of the alleged fear of terrorist groups right that is correct yes so bringing up that mentioning terrorism and act in this context is not enough area mentioning terrorism in canet direct connection with my client as in an inference that he was involved in terrorism is very different from raising the issue of terrorism in seven thousand dollars that is correct your honor i'm not contesting the facts as set out in the criminal matter what i am saying is that i mean when you when you look at the case history of particularly serious crime for property crime and for possession of stolen goods crime to be found to be a particularly serious crime is extraordinarily unusual in fact i was hard pushed to being tortured if they were sent back to lebanon didn't have gone in two thousand and voluntarily returned to lebannon for a funeral for a couple weeks yes your honor he did and there are many cases where individuals are granted asylum and withholding and deferral of removal under the convention where they have returned for a very short period of time for a very compelling reason and as my client testified at his hearing kept an extremely low profile in order to avoid drawing any attention to his return to lebanon but i'm  period of time and after of removal to that country where he would be there for any for a good length of time obviously i mean there is there and i think on the record that he's druzes are correct that's correct bruise and i've been honest being tortured by no one i don't think the standard has to be that every individual of a particular religion is is going to be targeted but if the religious group is targeted as a group and when you compound that with his deep ties to the united states not only from his lengthy presence but the fact that his entire family is here many of whom have asylum he when you come when you combine those two things what it means it increases the likelihood we're only looking at odds we're not one hundred percent certainty is not required and one hundred percent  rate of persecution against any particular group is not required under the lol that's got to be more likely than not yes your honor but not that doesn't i know that means that members of that group and he as an individual are more likely than not to be targeted it does again that does not require a showing in every single druze in lebanon has been targeted that would be a one hundred percent odds which is not required unde you know r r principal argument is that my client should have been permitted to present his case full withholding of removal based on a finding of a particularly serious crime and i would let you know on a particular week when we were of view that we're really we only really have jurisdiction to  twelve fifty two does not bar your review of particularly social particular social group and that's because the statute itself does not pronouncing that correctly that the words had to speak specifically there that the word discretion has to be in the statute because it's put in the statutes all over the place but in this want and needs to statute the asylum i'm withholding statutes the congress used the word decide and determined and they did not say in his discretion  our bid held that they had they had jurisdiction to review it they feel it's not clearly a purely discretionary decision otherwise it would have been taken out of the ambit of judicial review and yet then immigration judge considers some kind of legally permissible factors committed some kind of legal error that guides its discretion but that it does but it nevertheless exercise his discretion and so far as it does and so far as said considers legally appropriate factors there you know it's weighing of those factors and  decision that discretionary would be beyond our i see i'm out of time your honor for the question i think the you know in answer to that i would paraphrase this court's decision in versus where they said whether a particular fact pattern amounts to in that case torture in this case but to kill a serious crime requires the court to apply a legal definition to a set of undisputed you've got to have a rule which says you only look at the statutory definition you don't consider anything else but once you say that you can consider other matter how the i j a goes about amassing the fact jurisdictional discretion is is not specifically described under twelve of the two a to b i to be a discretionary decision under that statute and it simply says under particularly serious crime statute agency shall determine whether it's  mean yes so your view why they are not the board of use expression in applying for determining whether or not this conviction was a particularly serious crime and that involves three weighing three factors in this case which is what the boers explained under do you balance the nature of the conviction the circumstance underlying the conviction and the sentence posed and you weigh those factors of whether or not there is a particularly serious crime and we would argue under this standard a review of use discretion which means that you overturn a decision has to be arbitrary and irrational without reasoned explanation that the agency had clear reasonable explanations for why they found this to be a serious crime so starting with the circumstances underneath the conviction as the panel previously pointed out there was a violent encounters in each one or these charges the petitioner pled guilty to so he believed that in count six and seven died in which he was found guilty of that he exchanged large amounts of cash to what he believed was a sophisticated criminal enterprise on the other end and a violent encounters incurred each time to obtain the stolen goods to which he was purchasing that's the circumstance that the crime violent nature of the crime is not simply a property crime it's petitioner scraps and meanwhile you have the nature of the conviction as well which is the background documentation this is the documentation that shows the cigarette trafficking became a large problem united states it became linked to organized crime not just terrorism but drug cartels mafia organized crime in general because of the low penalties and the failure by law enforcement and michelin to take it seriously and meanwhile there was massive profits that could be gained so that was why they came by nature cigarette trafficking is a very serious crime because if you'll these black market entities these criminal enterprises that present a large danger to the community wherever they are encountered everything from organizations or active so it could be terrorist cells  could be drug cartels it could be just gangs in general but petitioner shows a willingness to contribute large amounts of cash to a sophisticated criminal organization on the other end and that is by nature particularly serious the community around him and then you have circumstances which i mentioned which were violent in themselves and the board looked at these two factors and with good reason we believe found this to be particularly serious crime and there is a sense impose that's the final factor just our notes in their brief that things like judicial or legal priorities like plea bargaining cooperation with already is an offender characteristics in this case perhaps young age that he was a student it's not always reflective of the seriousness of the  wasn't the jurisdictional bar that you say that we can only review for right legal errors right and so we don't advance that jurisdictional bar applies if it did apply the court be limited to legal heirs questions of law and constitutional claims but the court is not so limited the government is not arguing the court is so limited and answered you can review whether or not the immigration judge abused her discretion in making this determination not just whether in the ultimate decision and the ultimate decision that they did not look at the nature of conviction that didn't add up to particularly serious crime so that the direction of our did apply though it would only be the court be limited to legal claims such as that or constitutional claim the right that failed to supply all due to stat was a cat claim in this case because one as a panel noted such as own actions undermine that there is a clear probability of torture in lebannon after the first the only instance record repetition encountered hezbollah in two thousand and five additional voluntarily remained in lebanon for a year after that to finish school he was unharmed or in an encounter by hezbollah within that year then he came to united states adjusted status to also acknowledges the druze have relative security in lebanon and the not discriminated against in lebanon either so in the end what you have it's own testimony stating that he has he is relatively safe and that on you have his own actions which lebanon meanwhile his goal is not active throughout the entirety of lebanon's background documentation also shows that they are active in beirut and moreover just a southern suburb of beirut you'll see that also acknowledging the immigration judges tortured and severe infliction of pain or suffering upon him throughout lebanon and he cannot show that it's not in the background documentation it shows that hezbollah is active at most in lebanon and in small pocket in beirut and the southern suburbs of beirut not that the entirety of lebanon and also regarding the western ties connection there's one document the record the us embassy report which discusses western time and it says that u s citizens might be at risk of kidnapping in lebanon is not so similarly situated he's not a us citizen and he's from lebanon doesn't speak then discuss individuals who are from lebanon and whether they have a similar risk of being kidnapped for ransom was he said to show it's more like soften the wrath of islamic extremists that was one of the reports on which the immigration judge based her grant of cat relief and i would just draw attention to the fact