suffered in mexico are past persecution and the fact that they are past persecution as dispositive of this case when coupled with the fact that mr gonzalez cannot relocate in mexico first of all she suffered a strangling a state her throat she was suffering she was threatened with death her daughter was also threatened with death and she was that attempted a victim of attempted stoning by an angry mob there were seven of them who arrived at the house where  confrontation happened with sticks and stones to attack her she stoning has multiple meanings yes your honor so in this case you're talking about somebody who had stones thrown at her not somebody who was being crushed by a pile stones right but that was by having a little intention or any precedent that indicates that acts like this offensive as they are that acts like this necessarily date back to biblical times as it but not of the kind that you're talking about here i mean stoning as i understood it in biblical times meant crushing with stones and having rocks around it i mean i doubt there's a kid in the country that hasn't had rocks thrown them out to some point in time that's not persecution right but your honor when the in the motion for judicial notice we submitted evidence that stoning does occur in mexico and there is about six or seven articles that were submitted that stoning still does occur in mexico so know yes which means people are and this case says of the record actually show that they still was thrown at her mother i mean it's one thing to talk in generalizations but she didn't actually to that she said that stones were thrown a rock was thrown right she said that a number of people came to the house with rock with stones and sticks so the intention of the mob that came to greet her was perhaps to stone her and her mother so whether or not that occurred is not necessarily what the intention was of what happened we have to look at the fact that that actually does happen in mexico let me ask you this i think you've done a good job in your briefs establishing that this guy is a horrible guy yes and whether he's throwing rocks at her or someone on rocks or whatever he's a really bad guy i guess my concern about this case is that unfortunately there are a lot of bad guys and there are a lot of bad guys who do a lot of bad things to their spouses or their girlfriends or boyfriends for that matter how do we distinguish this case from other domestic abuse cases and how do we avoid a situation where if we were to go your way any time someone makes credible allegations of abuse by a spouse or partner who have who are unable to leave their partners are it is a social group and so mr guidance not your client because your client did leave her partner as she is she is not able to leave the partner's the fact that when she can see is with him he still is after her and she's left him but she's not because she only by her own doing and she lives some distance away from him you know when she is when she is a around him he says he has a threat of death threat answer yes you're saying when she's around him and my question is isn't the evidence that she is in fact not around him except when she goes to visit her daughter they are still married he refuses and i asked that's not the question i asked are they physically next to each other no about the fact of a relationship very similar to this when a relationship where the woman left the abuser and went back and left the abuser and left and went back and they found that the is simply consistent with her desire to be away from him and she can be away from him without remaining in this country only if she has legal status she can remain in this country all of she has legal status she going to stay away from in mexico how he has fallen he has sent someone to follow her she thinks that maybe somebody is following her there's no work actual evidence of that nothing's ever happened to her some police cannot discount her first person experience that someone she believe that someone followed her and her brother and the expert doesn't know the particulars of her situation does he know and that's not necessary actually because what if there is a no evidence of any harm she has suffered when she's away from him and no evidence that she can't stay away from him that's not true ok what's not true about it that she can't there's no evidence that she can stuff that she's safe away from him that is not a not a true statement there's no evidence to the contrary far away from the evidence the record looks somewhat conflicting to me how far away is her home or her family's home in mexico from where nurses go lives it's a it's a number of hours it's i approximately five hours away and the gang the  cart gang is active in the state of guerrero the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals they cherry picked the issue of the fact that miss gonzalez can leave ken excuse me it's only a reasonable opportunity is me apologize she is only required to show that it is a reasonable that she not relocate in mexico and the experts stated that if she were look relocate as a single woman that she would be subject to possible extradition kidnapping she would be a target of sexual predators traffickers and so she cannot relocate without the protection of her family and it's not reasonable to expect her family to relocate additionally she has her daughter it's not reasonable to expect that she not have contact with her daughter because once she has contact with her daughter then mr rob knows where she is so those go to the reasonableness of relocation  you want to reserve the rest of your time yes i do think you good morning your honor counsel may it please the court rob styles or behalf of the attorney general your honour's the problem in this case is simply the evidence is not there it does not support the claim that she would like to make and that is related to the past persecution which only extended to the single incident in mexico and it also related to the issues of relocation and whether the government would be unwilling or unable to protect her the evidence is legal that the government that you do not have substantial evidence that the go t could protect her should we remain and this no your honor because the other dispositive issue in that case would be the reasonable to us of relocation which he also bore the burden to establish below on that on that issue and relocation the evidence establishes that at least she was able to go to her hometown which was five or six hours away from ne as town but also it's important to remember that the burden was on her during the entire proceedings to establish that she couldn't go anywhere in mexico and the evidence related to that particular question was simply generalized country conditions and from ations stating that the gangs are everywhere but even her own experts said that well he thought was a simple was a local  gang and he could not pine on whether or not the reach of the gang actually extended to all of mexico and that's why there is no compelling evidence that she couldn't relocate to another place in mexico other than r c so sometimes there's no reason she should go back to ne as hometown and that's why she cannot apply in withholding cases it is not required here under brostrom arrow simply because this isn't a nexus case it wasn't a case where the board was ruling on motive or whether it was a mixed motive or not that doesn't come into it the issues here were past persecution which she didn't establish because the was a single incident in mexico not of insufficient harm and also because of the reasonable to the relocation and the lack of evidence relating to whether the governor would be unable or unwilling to help her again to meet that element she simply provided country conditions statements and her own general statement i didn't think the police could help me that's not enough we have to have a reason to believe that the police wouldn't actually help her if she thought their help and we just don't know whether that's true or not particularly in her hometown where her own expert testified that she could seek protection because her family is located there and that by the way goes to her withholding claim and also the claim that hasn't been mentioned here yet and that is the torture claim again the evidence just wasn't there if i do i do have a general question about this case you know in the in the world of people that our country is trying to remove i don't know why this lady is high on that list can you can you provide some background as to why we've had so much effort by the u s government to remove this lady as a specific matter i don't know your honor i'm simply assigned the case you do know that she has multiple unlawful reentries which is something that usually triggers some scrutiny other than that i couldn't tell you is no criminal record or not to my knowledge and back to being a bomb maker or something like that not to my knowledge your honor truly things i just want to respond to one with their sex or the stoning issue which arose during during my colleague's argument the specific exchange when  sister chased her off in fact and i do want to emphasize this point is going to always partner asked was asked what advice he so say when he did it and he said i don't want to see you anymore which is what distinguishes this from cases like the one p as in which we see the cycle of violence where we see the abuser cannot escape the abused and the abused want to get the abuse or they keep coming back to each other here we have a case where they don't want to see each other and where she does want to see him and he does want to see her making this distinction to go to your question before you honor from the ordinary for in terms of future if we look at the cat let's look at the possibility of torture on which you know doesn't she have some argument that how is she supposed to completely get away from him because she they do have i guess a daughter in common they are in mexico and therefore she needs the protection of the police as anybody with a domestic violence issue i suppose would and what is the evidence that she can get it well the evidence that she can get it would be her own experts testimony he said that he thought that because her family was based in her hometown that she could find help there but again that was speculative on his part because the evidence wasn't there were going to it was her burden to provide the evidence that she can't seek police protection rather than d h is a burden to demonstrate that she can't  on those grounds she provided generalized country conditions evidence suggesting that the police are corrupt some police are corrupt in some places but again we need a reason to believe that she in particular would be unable to avail herself of the police somewhere and i because the evidence there i don't know she didn't show that the mexican government in general would help or what about the local police in her hometown to the weapon again the evidence wasn't there and it was her burden to provide that evidence your honor which is why she failed to establish that elements the inability or unwillingness of the government to protect her on the withholding claim and the torture claim which you just mentioned whether a public official would acquiesce or consent or show will for blindness to her torture the evidence just isn't there in the record and for that reason you should deny this petition for review i look at the i j a use decision and emphasizes as the evidence to support the conclusion the government is taking action against violence and violence is declining it and cites the same statement by the former president twice within a couple of pages about a forty two percent decline in the murder rate in one province i go look what backs that up i'm not sure there's very much that backs that up or very much you can draw from and yet the i j decide to cite that same evidence twice is that the best we have in terms of what the conditions are like in that province and i think the immigration judge was looking at the totality are saying this is a mixed message because it was well violence is just a client it's still violent but the issue there that the anderson i just wanted to clarify that mr robin actually sought out miss consolidates when they sought her out when she went to see his her daughter so it's not a fact that they don't want to see each other because he sought to hurt her i just wanted to use the daughter live on the daughter lives with his mother mr robert on mesereau but on some other i confess i may just be lost in the cast of characters i thought the bad guy was somebody's name r c so yes is the rabbit on yes and i just wanted to talk briefly about cat because it's a convention against torture because there's two forms of relief that miss gonzales is eligible for withholding over passage of time does not diminish the threat so he has threatened her with death and the fact that it has been a number of years does not diminish that she is still under a death threat by mr robert on why why well she testified and i wanted to briefly speak about this if there is time that in the united states he abused her and he based on the fact that he thought he was she was his property and her his slave and there's four reasons why the abuse the united states is actually relevant to to the claim one is the motive the other is that it gives a context to the the abuse that she's the persecution that she suffered in mexico another is that an hernandez versus ashcroft that the court called been abusive relationship a single and continuing entity and with that and i'm out of time i'll give  minister said ok the last is that there is ongoing persecution that she suffered she lost a tooth she was physically deformed because of the abuse on her face and she was also raped and conceived a child from the rape which she has to live with for the rest of her life thank your honour's thank you counsel this matter submitted we appreciate your argument