two reasons st gracie cannot safely relocate in mexico and nd mexican officials would acquiesce to her torture because this court expressed an interest in relocation in it operations we had a factual finding that this was a large well known far reaching mexican cartel thus the location was neither safe nor reasonable gracie's testimony provided firsthand accounts of how the c guessed right and we know that she was only n t awana correct and so i guess that the challenges that i see on the on this idea that to rely on her testimony that it was a large well known part tell us that it's not particularly clear i said i'm not sure it's still clear why she didn't say who the cartel was whether it was because she didn't want to say or because she didn't know who the cartel where she testified both ways but given that she wouldn't cat deemed that that is sufficient to meet the applicant's burden of proof with out secondary corroborating evidence so while she was not able to keep the afraid d to name the cartel and then provide specific about what was more likely than not to happen to gracie were she forced to return to mexico but somebody's got to be it till they can be credible right like like like the petitioner that i think was credible but if they say something you can also say well that's great but i need something cooperating also i mean that's pretty black letter law so the question i guess is if they say i think it's a large cartel or whatever what she testified to  however the statutes and the subsequent regulations indicate that the judgment of whether or not more corroborating evidence is necessary is traditionally left to be i j a to the fact finder and here are the i j a deemed that this was sufficient testimony differently it said that it would have courted more weight to the possibility of relocation whereas the i j a and her decision help differently and this court has held on to the clearest standard view that if two permissible and princes are ok to be drawn from the significance testimony regarding the card count contacting the family in the united states yes your honor the significance of that goes to you in the government's response brief they make quite a big deal about only being able to name five states where the cartel operates however what the cartels reach into los angeles to take pictures of her children at school and to contact her children demonstrate is that greasy the list of states where she knows the cartel operates and ability to work outside of just you want there for her the potential that she might be able to relocate into one of the other mexican states is not all that relevant now counsel that that's a that's an interesting argument because where does she want to relocate to in the united states if if the if we were to i assume she wants to go to l a where the cartel operates so i think it makes sense to me that a cartel that might have only limited geographic reach in mexico it's what it does is it runs drugs into the united states would also have to reach into the united states so i think your argument that well the fact that it reaches into l a means that it reaches into some rule parts of mexico i mean they can't reach into one of those rural areas or areas and make torture early see more likely than not right right counsel i mean this takes us back to but the evidence of that here is basically i mean she had very thin stuff that she said to the i a took that and said it's the large well known organized cartel without knowing who the cartel was without being able to it just seems it seems i understand that you give deference to the back binding of the i j a but here it seems credibility the judge has to analyze the details that she was keeping right and the details that she gave she even participated in some of these actions of violence self or of covering it up rights and so or so the details that she gave were more than simply say i've hear there are violent organization she actually was a participant until she had time to sle she were back there right that's a distinction as well practiced and that all ties into the reasonableness of relocation as well which also touches on judge been last line of questioning the fact that she has emily ties in the united states but not mexico the fact that she has very little familiarity with mexico outside of the one state where she was quarter or factors that go to the reasonability of relocation in fact family ties under this court's holding and no  the then one of the things this that i struggle with this is a little bit weird case because this is somebody who's and it was a citizen of a country but has very little ties there because she other than other than a cartel five she had and do you want to but but she doesn't most of time when you're talking about the results relocation you've got some of it was really strong ties and one partner may become a part of the country and you're saying what actually caused him to move to someplace completely different he or she has no ties anywhere in that country so it's a little it seems to me that the relying on the unreasonable ness or the fact that she doesn't have ties to that country family or anything else to say that she shouldn't relocate there is really just saying that she should be required to go back to the country she's a citizen of because she really something new i mean we have now more cases on we may have more next year but if we were to determine really simply as a matter of low that the b i a was incorrect why would we need to rema that's needed there but we have a host of actual findings already made by the i j so i'm having some trouble understanding that what it is the additional factual elements that you're talking about yes you found her credible but that does not necessarily just because an advocate is credible that's not necessarily anything that they should be granted relief in protection of all the applicant must also carry a burden on and i think would give or is doing here i on the other testimony and in the lack of evidence so now also make sure i'm clear on this because i'm fairly new on this score but i seem to run into this this confusion but i'm pretty sure that i've seen these cases and it's black letter law that you can you can ask somebody to testify praed obliquely and that credible testimony can support their position but they still haven't met their burden but the summit they're burned by the time you weigh it with the other evidence accept it and as judge i think mickey sherman said sometimes that goes to cooperation and then i think there's a rule that they have to ask for for more the idea has to offer more carbon sometimes i just ways with her evidence is in the record and says you just haven't you haven't met your birth not cooperation issue but you know given what you've provided the country and i think in this case because you haven't said who the cartel is that it's not enough and you've also said that you only know it operates in these certain states then then then you just haven't met your burden so i think it's in my right that there's a big difference between credible i'll get a chance to ask those in counsel here but the other thing that's interesting here is it does not appear like i j actually concluded that she couldn't say to relocate i mean it seems like while i do implicitly conclude she was nowhere in the country that she could safely be located to because of because of a nationwide breach but that you could say if you did ok but that it didn't weigh in favor so it seems to me like it's almost like an implicit i guess implicit discounting of that testimony in not identifying the card you know had to do with security and so i think we can't forget that but given that and then given the i j a is why familiarity given the area where or the whole lease go cart that wouldn't really change the testimony here and so i don't quite understand the focus on name in the cartel when it wasn't that she was  unable because she was able to nose the card but she was unwilling would be more accurate or or what so what would it matter given the other findings here if we had the name of a critical so st year on her own i do you feel like this necessary to point out that the record is very clear on whether she knew or did not know the name of the part she insisted several times and explained direct testimony  and you know we know that the cartels have certain classes that they can allocate and that's really for doing business so to speak but that doesn't mean that the group you know is found here by the i j a that they don't have a broader reach that doesn't mean they're doing business you know in the us or you could go wherever but that doesn't that's different than having a broader reach would seem to be the issue may please the court the i g a did conclude that all other factors such as relocation did not outweigh the high probability that it was more likely than not the grace to be tortured if forced to return to mexico she did  made this factual finding based on the received those notes of the b i said i mean if you're reading that as talking you're reading that us as saying that when you compare those factors that and i'm not sure that i should ask away that read that way but if it does have to be read that way and what you're saying is this rodriguez holder where the i j a based on testimony provided by the counsel ready to be cleared to be clear the relocation analysis there's an aspect of that that is what has to happen to the petitioner right as you know is the cartel have nationwide reach could they reach them here but there's also another part which is seems like that the i j a said i don't think there's nationwide reach or something because the i j a didn't didn't seem to conclude that she could not relocate and said that i j said i'm weighing that against the other stuff and saying that the cartel walks like a far reaching mexican cartel and talks like the far reaching works in cartels and it might just be one of these large well known or reaching mexican cartels this is a factual finding made by the i j a and this court has consistently and and thank you thank you to both counsel this morning also particular thanks to petitioners counsel for our project that the aiding in our pro bono program and also to the university of georgia law school i know all of us including government counsel appreciate having a well written legible brief to respond to so thank you mr opus from for appearing from wherever you may be and mr seagal was the case just argued is submitted