honour's and let me just check roseanne perry yes good morning good morning ok we're ready to go mr please the court i would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal short thank you very much on this matter has been twice to the board of immigration appeals and twice they did not deal with the  major and the elephant in the room which is my client's indigenous maya background they refused to deal with that it's a protected ground and she was harmed because of her ethnicity as a my indigenous woman all the facts everybody agrees on all the facts there's no dispute on the facts the government in the brief except all the facts to be truthful to be in the last dissolution the board of immigration appeals starts and states that her problems in guatemala at the hands of a persecuted brian occurred because she was a my indigenous woman that is the central issue in this case which hasn't ever be dealt with a result it was due to her ethnicity and brian's hatred towards her due to her at the city as a my on woman that she was multiply raped treated as this cha and received and could not receive any protection in a country because the government doesn't acknowledge her as a human being at the age of three she couldn't go to school she was not allowed to get an education she cannot speak spanish the only language she could speak was her native language indigenous language there are no police offices in that country who were trained to handle any such claims for indigenous people and all the laws that were passed in guatemala weren't implemented because nobody cared the police lacked the training they could not investigate sexual crimes against women and lack of language or did you report that no she didn't report you didn't support now her to report friends did tell her to report ok just correct me if i'm wrong i'm not yes the law in the circuit is very clear the way you have a record where the government's failure to enforce its laws and punish violence against women and indigenous people is an uphill you do not expect this court has repeatedly stated in published decisions the individual does not have to report you look at the country conditions you look at realise that's not the end of the story that's not the end of the story but i'm wondering why isn't the advice of her acquaintances to authorities some evidence that the authorities would have helped because her life experiences in an indigenous woman way she relocated and he pulled her by his hair and brought her back he raped her his friends raped her she came to the classification at the age of three or four that you couldn't go to school because people threw stones at her that she was worthless as an indian as a person who was growing up in guatemala she wasn't that's not wrong at all the relationship started off with a mutual relationship between a man and a woman in guatemala and degenerated when he saw shu could not speak spanish and she was unable to communicate and taken six months to figure out this you couldn't speak spanish i would think well it took him six months to control her and know she could be controlled and abused by him there was no abuse on the st day abuse came and she left him yawner she walked away she ran away she was raped by him and his friends not once but four times that happened she didn't want to be in that relationship she left him are major issues in guatemala but they don't enforce them and they don't punish individuals who commit rape or femicide in that country and it's prevailing throughout society and everybody knows that over then  the honduras and that wasn't dispositive in that case well there's a big difference between honduras and guatemala and its treatment of indigenous people and women this country guatemala as th we held this a record did not compel the conclusion that the honduran government was unable or unwilling to control the persecution against the petitioner we noted that the country porsha widespread domestic violence by governmental efforts to control it how is this case different because this is not a case about domestic violence this is a case about make a truth brian hated her the government of guatemala does not protect its indigenous population case is not about domestic violence because she left him she understood that she walked away she relocated the good hunter down he could force himself upon her pull or by the hair drag go through the streets some guatemalan bring her back and then provide her to his friends and have them rape that's what happened the st six months clearly demonstrate there was a mutual relationship and it could to sweep frame the issue i think wait the state department country report indicates that more than ninety percent of the reported cases involving sexual and physical assault guess what don't result in convictions then the perpetrator he remains high why isn't that enough to show the guatemalan government is able to control that being said rapes at issue here well just because their convictions doesn't mean having been a former prosecutor if my conviction rate was only ten percent i don't think i would have kept my job very long usually the conviction rates more like ninety percent and here right it's flipped right there is i'm not sure if i were deciding this in the st instance i'm not sure i would have decided it as a i j n to be dead but now i'm in a deferential standard  so but there are so you know you you argue that the guatemalan government has taken concrete steps to combat the domestic violence but the report doesn't really discuss whether many of these efforts are effective if the agency falsely equate legislative and executive annakin and nachman for having persecution with the on the ground progress and so you know that's why that's what you need to tell us why it doesn't compel because prevent harm against women so in brings us rodriguez we noted that there had been efforts in mexico to deal with discrimination and abuse against gays min but we specifically noted that you know although the laws are there there's another question maybe that you know the existence of the government's efforts to adopt laws to protect people who are gay in mexico but they have been in the record the on the ground evidence is that it's just not they're not able to why isn't that right but once you got the same here i mean the the the board cites bring this but  general records of country and forcing their laws or and so it seems to me the difference would have to be if you can have a difference it have to be based on other evidence and here of the other evidence that we the only other evidence is her testimony one aspect of that is bad for her in that she didn't report it but more generally i guess the question i've got is the i j a made it clear adverse credibility finding here  and i don't know if we're supposed to review the record as a whole to see if it is if the evidence in the record compels a different conclusion than with a concluded now we are we're stuck with the b i scrounged decision but we're not actually stuck with the evidence that to be relied on the th circuit is very clear about that we look at all the evidence so it's a supreme court so it's as fast as torah law and so i don't understand why we don't also look at it as part of that evidentiary matrix the adverse credibility finding think that justifies our decision but on review of the we can't overturn the board unless looking at all six pieces of the evidence it compels a different conclusion so why if one of those six piece of evidence is the adverse credibility finding is adverse credibility finding somehow treated differently than the rest of the evidence we have to look at all the evidence that's very clear the supreme court has said that the statute says that why do we do that i don't understand why do we assume she's credible because we're not weighing her credibility i'm not talking about assuming she is or isn't i'm just saying that we can only overturn the b s a if the evidence in the record as a whole compels a different conclusion part of that evidence is it's the adverse credibility finding that's part of the evidence just like the rest of it so why do we not take that into consideration why do we have to pretend like she's credible when part of the evidence is that the adverse credibility find that doesn't make sense to me the evidence the entire evans but not just after the supreme court has been very clear on that too and so is that right i mean do we if the th circuit if the i ruled on one ground and said and said have not heard your and part of it is my interactions so i would like you to tell me what is your best what in the records that we have to review and if we assume that since the board didn't rely on the adverse credibility of the evidence that was that in the record what is your best argument that what is in that record that supports what they did and therefore would not compel a different result give me your best record well it started with you didn't report ok but that's not the end of it so tell me what your other best what is in the record that supports what to be  boyfriend and also she told her former employer and her neighbor they told her to report the incident to the police so that suggests that they believe that the police could help  the record also shows that her boyfriend told her to if she reported it he would kill but that's very similar it seems to me as the castro part of the case for the father she see expressed the same concern about the father retaliate against her you should report regarding the procedural posture of this case so as i understand it the board as we've been discussing didn't go off on on adverse credibility just decided the cases on the basis of the unable or unwilling or unable prong of the past persecution analysis the board didn't go on to any other elements is that correct that's right so if we were to to agree with the petitioner and remained of the board the board would have to go through the rest of the analysis right that correct yeah and in that point the board could take another look at the adverse credibility decision right yeah and whether or not there is a  protected group in play and said ok relying on the adverse credibility of the finding we reached the exact same ground we need the same position on the same ground that we're now throwing the adverse credibility part of the evidence into that we can rely on that and i stand they didn't but we are now and so that gets appealed it comes back up to us and now we and we say ok well you've got you relied on the adverse credibility so we're going to up hold the board's decision or we're going to deny review at that point why did we lose the st time because our job on review right now is to say is it is it does the evidence as a whole compel a different result and so when we just have just proven this false and i just talked it out and it came back and we have called it that the evidence as a whole does come because the evidence or a matrix would be changing at all it's just because the board would be affirming that relying on on different evidence but that that's not a ground there's a distin grounds in evidence and we have to look at all of the evidence to see if it justifies the if it justifies if it compels a different result on that ground and so it seems to me like if the board with the go back and decide on the same ground based on the adverse credibility determination that would nicely demonstrate that we're doing it wrong if we don't if we don't take that into account in deciding whether  chance to rule on the adverse credibility there's no grounds to uphold the adverse credibility of the judge it is based on no facts at the st time they didn't uphold it this sent it back assuming she was credible based on the new testimony the judge agreed with my client that she was abused and a victim they said that they didn't understand why the judge said it was unclear that's the st b i decision the nd b i decision is two  find that the lack of credibility finding was not was not justified by substantial evidence that assuming argue endo that she's credible and then so that's not quite right that would make a difference i think it's in the eye and said you know we're looking at that at the i j s credibility finding and we are we are rejecting it the same way we could if it wasn't supported by by substantial evidence that would be one thing that's not this case but the other thing too is if i'm looking now at the idea a nd decision the one that  significant and i think come pelling adverse credibility fine by the and to be i and two to one hundred and eleven of the board of immigration judges agreed with my client that she should have got the relief they assumed in  to because they knew the judge's decision couldn't be upheld it would be mocked it would be thrown out of court there's no basis for that judge's adverse credibility finding and so far as the nd matter based on what counsel the honorable judge said ninety percent the prosecution's don't occur in this country when women are killed the police aren't trained they don't investigate sexual assault that's in the record so her reporting it makes no difference as this court stated in it would be futile on her part even reported and not a minor because the police wouldn't protect thank you very much ok thank you counsel we appreciate your arguments counselor appreciate your willingness to participate in the virtual court thank you all very much a just a few minute recess a five minute recess while we get to our next case which is going to be jenkins versus wal mart real