protect to grow well isn't just to cut right to the chase as we don't have a lot of time here it seems to me you've got two big issues here number one is what's the role of the village chief in the governmental structure if any and whose burden is it to show that structure and then of course you've got the issue that the chief shot your client but your client as it might have just been an accident and he has no idea what brought the gang of other people that beat him up it's all his burden of proof so can you clarify those who what is a village chief what did your client do to show that he was a governmental official yeah you know you're  of you know thailand's political system that this is a local government official and we submit that the it is number one again from the title and well when i meant i meant it with respect i don't think that's right you know you can say somebody is achieve but that doesn't make them a government official is are an organizational chart is there anything that you can show us that under law an government that a village chief and particularly this village chief was a governmental official and you're on it as part of the administrators record no there's nothing administrat well with respect i understand that's what your client has alleged but as you might appreciate we get a lot of cases where people claim that the government's involved and it's a family dispute or there's a robbery or something of that nature and there really is no government governmentally involved let's just assume for a minute that the village chief is a government official how do you deal with the issue that your client by his own words he doesn't know whether the chief shot him by accident he thought he was drunk or whatever and that the other people the thugs who beating p s no idea why they attack how does that tie into a protected status under of the law that ties back to the government so there are two things that i would like to address one thing is aside from this situation the isolated incident when that this guy is the chief but let's let's say he is your client did not say that he was shot by the chief because of his political beliefs or his family connection he thinks he might have been but he doesn't know and he doesn't  he was beaten up by these other people who he thinks came from the cheap but he doesn't know that he doesn't know why they attacked him it's his burden to show that you know it's a statutorily protected ground is the reason for his being attacked and he doesn't say that he doesn't indicate why he doesn't know why he was attacked i'll just quote you on that if i mean he probably doesn't know exactly why he's trying to be truthful and the i g indicated that my client was credible and great presumption if you sell these past persecution fish the prosecutors presume the people to turn to the government isn't that usually when the family's political opinion is known though and i can't even figure out really what their political opinion here was i can't even quite figure out whether the village chief agreed with the national government or not whether he was working for both or with whether the uncle was working for both the national government and the village chief or just the national government it's very confusing even what though i'm in here was yes  i mean i i feel a view of the oh this is this is this is not that clear from from the ministry of record and so how can we assume that there's political opinion at issue maybe they just weren't paying him an offer i mean i have no idea what was going on with why he was working or not working for the village chief and i've i mean i understand your honor i think what what what the agency did goes along the lines of this argument that we don't really know and the agency actually goes into the record and started speculating of would what particularly those parts go into is could could mean and would indicate but there is these and there's just no evidence that your client state that if he went back to thailand there is no reason to believe that the government and tunneling mood won him harm that's his own   the decision of the immigration judge and he makes factual findings which i think were well supported by the record you might disagree with which way he may help it and he says quote this incident happened twenty eight years ago we do not know why what motivated it or what inspired it so the court is left with nothing to figure out whether the same people would still want to go after the responded twenty eight years later and they responded testified that if he went back to thailand there is no reason to believe the government of thailand would one him harmed so the respondent has failed to beat his burden establishing that is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the government of thailand or with the government's acquiescence what what in that recitation is clear this is due to you i know also that any of my colleagues have any immediate questions ok let's hear from the government thank you very much i give you a minute since this is your first up here i think so i will give you a shot ok all right let's hear from the government as your honour's have identified there are the central issues here namely nexus as well as the likelihood of future persecution or likelihood of torture with respect to nexis there were three relevant incidents described in the record with there was a shooting by the village chief as well as that beating by group of individuals they were at least a year apart there was no context or information as to the beating with respect to the shooting by the village chief certainly as your honour's have identified the record does show that it's it was an accident it was a drunken accident in which the bill the chief was waving around his gun and i think mr le transfix own words and testimony undermined his ability to meet his burden of proof here in his testimony he stated that the evidence regarding the beating was essentially that out of nowhere he was beaten by individuals who were he believed were affiliated with the village chief they did not say anything to him he did not know why the beating occurred and the immigration judge knowing that this was an issue or a topic that was important did ask him several times to try and elaborate and mr living did not state he couldn't recall he just stated he did not know the motivations in those scenarios with respect to the immigration judge's decision the immigration judge did assess all the evidence and made several conclusions that showed definitively how not definitive the evidence was the immigration said that the shooting was quote unclear included been an accident the immigration judge that the record locked information quote unquote as  the immigration judge said there was not enough information to show that the beating was motivated by a protected ground rather than quote personal reasons so this simply does not add up to evidence that would compel reversal of the  findings here could i ask you about the cat claim that it seems like the agency is resolution of the cat claim turned on the idea that the village chief is not a government official do you agree with that the immigration judge the thai government in the village chief i believe that the immigration judges words were there is no evidence that the government of thailand condoned or otherwise acquiesced in the beating and then continued on to discuss that there was really no evidence that there would be more likely than not that mr large and the would be tortured but in essence the mr legend its own words were not very clear regarding what the role of the village chief w it seemed as if there was a delineation between the uncle who worked for the thai government and the village chief who wanted the uncle to come work for him instead and that led to the dispute over loyalty or employment whatever you'd like to call it  in essence there is simply not enough evidence to put that village chief within the category of a public official for purposes of acquiescence under the cat so doesn't it i mean what it how are we supposed to think about that it sounds like a village chief is probably at least a local government official well a village chief could be many things ability could be appointed by the people in that neighborhood or in that community and what the case law tells us that someone appointed by the neighborhood to be in the neighborhood isn't a government official for purposes of cap well we in this record to the courts review today must look at the evidence in the record and i believe in petitioners opening brew if he dresses extra record evidence that is we could pedia article that is not relevant but for the immigration judge who is the fact finder and relying on the facts and evidence the immigration judge simply relied on those facts to make the determination that the village chief there was not enough evidence to show that the village chief was in any way related to the government and run it well how do we know they have to be i mean so what i'm wondering is it seems like i mean in our country we have local government we have national government is there a case that tells us that cat only worries about the national government well i think worries a cat reflects  a discussion of the public official or someone conducting official duties so i'm just wondering whether the assumption that it matters that he wasn't the same as the national government is a relevant legal or some legal distinction well how does that matter if maybe both levels of government would matter then it doesn't matter that it's not part of the national government well i think local government can be implicated in a cat analysis however again that's assuming that this village chief was part of a local government that he would be considered a public official i celebrities but don't have a public official role within the government so i think that the immigration judge is well within her right to make it determination that there was simply not enough evidence to connect the two and i would note that as your honour's discussed even assuming the village chief was a public official within that determination you would still have to show that the village chief instigated the beating or consented or acquiesce to that beating and there's absolutely no connection between those affiliated with the subordinate of the village chief those who conducted the beating and the village chief himself so there would still need somebody doesn't sound right i mean someone is working essential in the line of control of the village chief then they a legal error in assuming that you needed to be part of the national government then should we remained for reconsideration after correcting that legal error i don't believe that the immigration judge specified that it had to be the national government  the immigration judge stated he's simply the village chief there was no evidence that he was part of the thai government as a whole which can include local governments affiliated with the national government obviously as in the states here affiliated with the federal government as a whole but a village chief there simply was not enough evidence nor did mr luzhin to present testimony as to what his role was if anything mr lee jan to show the total opposite that there was a delineation between the government and a village chief and that he wanted the petitioners uncle to come work for him as opposed to working for the government and i think that clear line makes the evidence reasonable for the immigration judge to make that conclusion if we assume and i certainly agree my colleague raises an important point but if we assume argue wendel that the village she was a local government official for all cats and withholding purposes and when we look at the evidence here we still are faced with the same issue are we not that that there is no allegation that's or an approved allegation that the village chief whatever his role may have been shot the petitioner for any protected reason it was an accident and with respect to the fore i think for other people there is no connection at all that they beat him up because it was something related to the cheap did they beat him up he doesn't know why they beat him up so even if we assume that issue if we assume that the i j a should have treated this village chief as a government official it doesn't matter because the proof is still missing is it not the immigration judge focuses on the likelihood of torture which is also important for cat and as your honour's have previously mentioned this occurred twenty eight years ago there is simply not enough evidence to show that more likely than not that fifty one percent chance that he would be tortured if returned to thailand we don't know if this bill is she was alive if those individuals who meet him are alive if they still live in that village they still have an interest in targeting him of the passage of time that wasn't part of the agencies and i don't see that as part of the i is response to the cat claim is it if i could have a moment i believe the forward i think they just said this thing about it not being part of the government and the government's acquiescence i believe in the previous paragraph the board does discuss the fact that there is no threat to future persecution twenty years after the incident and that's why with the withholding right now for cat correct but in terms of the and i'm just looking at the board's decision the board does reference the immigration judge page seventeen mph seventeen of the immigration judge's decision is the page that discusses the sentence this incident happened twenty years ago we do not know why what motivated it or what inspired it and the court was left to simply make assumptions as to why these individuals would still go after  the petitioner twenty years later i do see my time is up if your honour's have any further either question or thought thank you very much thank you  extra minute here so i appreciate your honor deferred quickly i'll address a couple of points i i can't agree with the government more immigration judges not to make any speculation sort of claim there's no requirement that the government at large should be behind torture put polygamous got clay and more years so the local government officials who may go rogue don't really matter