the honorable the judge of the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit the boy all persons having any manner or form it is now before the honorable united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit or opinion in this case where it affirmed the r j noting that testimony quote did not reveal any motivation other than the criminal intent to take his property and to threaten retribution if you reported what he had witnessed to the police now that first motivation it seems doesn't help your client because just a general proclivity to commit robbery or crimes in general isn't enough to satisfy disagree with that not i i agree that i thought you might yes i agree that i'm not sure that the government will but i mean that language suggests the very essence of the protected social  they never really gauge with whether or not this is in fact a protected social group but if you assume the truth of that statement suggests that the only unrebutted testimony in this record is that the at least one reason why the ga tied to the assumed protecting social group in this case or is it just the same and the gangs are prone to commit violence generally in guatemala unfortunately i think get it meets the elements  for the board to decide if we were ruling or favor it seems to me that this case would go back to the board for a determination as to whether or not the social group in this case is actually actually satisfies that report tell us that you were  talk about unless you're arguing and i guess you can that the record in this case is mission and that you think we by statute or regulation can engage in that enough and that analysis what is your position on our position which this case us to be may please the court collect winston for attorney general william r first there is no compelling evidence demonstrating a nexus to a protected ground here either witnessing a gang crime or a family relationship to mr president announces his brother and actual or feared persecution second there is no compelling evidence demonstrating past particular social groups the board did not reach it so it has to be assumed here for purposes of nexus the next is that he was a witness to a gang crime he was a victim of robbery and he was threatened but the gang here acted in furtherance of their crime how was it in furtherance it was in furtherance because they were trying to protect their crime from being uncovered so the motive but he did not report the crime to the police he will not even what was relevant well i think it's it's relevant because after the witnessing of the crime we have to look at the whole picture we have to look at the entire circumstances the totality of the circumstances and if you step back and look at the whole picture instead of the more narrow view you can see that he never reported it to the police to protect h no i'm not saying that where we're assuming that he satisfies the protected social group the question is is there a bridge between that protected social group and his fear or actual or fear persecution right and the only evidence in the record even though he was a little skeptical about saying that it was credible which he said the gangs motivations and women and the b are further saying that there were two motivations one criminal intent to take his property into an inten next question i'm having trouble understanding why that's the only evidence in the record why doesn't the government lose well the sentence that you pointed out is really the key sentence in the right decision i think i've made that very clear i just need to figure out why it is that it's not dispositive in in favor of the petitioner because they're both criminal intent well now you can have more than one in ten and more than one motive but i'm certainly they're not inconsistent with the gangs apparently if you know that they have they have multiple reasons why they threaten and and harkins people unfortunately but in this case evidence is that one of the reasons is retribution for a witness in crime which is that burden falls directly under the umbrella of the protected social group that's addition in this case that the threatened threatening of the retribution stems from a criminal intent and the key is it has to be at least one central reason it can't be a tangential reason can't be superficial reason it has to be one central reason so the sentence that your honor pointed out was that the respondents testimony did not  motivation other than the criminal intent to take his property and i would read the criminal intent to threaten retribution if you reported where you witnessed to the police that if you stand  threat was in furtherance of the same crime that the murderer it was to make sure that no bit that that merc didn't come to anybody's attention so when the gangs threatened him and told him if you go to the police we're going to kill you that that is just part of a cover up of the crime they had just committed so in many of the cases this court has accused the board in a sense of taking too narrow a view i'm asking the court to stand back and to take a broader view and to see that if i don't understand your argument it sounds like you're saying that because the  it's it's because the whole thing falls under the umbrella of criminal intent that this was kind of a random occurrence that it didn't repeat itself that there was he didn't recognize the gang members he never had any contact with them later and i think that the future future acts kind of informs the motive at the time so if their motive was to make sure that their crime wasn't didn't come to the attention of the police that is just part and parcel of the original crime again that that he unfortunately witnessed but it's really not a nexus it's really part of criminal acts random violence by gangs in guatemala which is prevalent but which he was part of so i think if you step back you see that it's all part they're not allowed to threaten witnesses but it's part of what would have to have happened here or there to be efficient method i think for there to be for this to be at least one central reason and it is the burden of proof for the petitioner here he would have had to prove kind of a pattern of other apps that occurred afterwards threats visiting his home if you look at all the different cases court go quail katter's with respect to him is what you're saying he since he was only read it wants well he was he was definitely threatened once because we have to assume that what i said is credible though he would have had to been threatened  more than once that we could say there there has to be more than that had it can't be that random or incidental were tangential it has to be more central and i think to make it central there's got to be acts that follow and if you look at the other cases it's not just one random act it's a series of games going to people's houses throwing stones threatening beating people up it's not just a one time occurrence so that's not sufficient for a nexus it's i would argue that it's tangential it may be a reason but it's a tangential reason it's not a central reason and here the record has to come hell that it's one  and that was it that's still not enough i would say that's still not enough i would say that we can general that would be incidental but you know he was there for two more months he didn't know the gang members he didn't know whether they really knew him he there was no there was no follow up it was it was it was too random and i think that here because he had no further contact with the gang members after that one incident on the road i think that there that nexus isn't at least one central reason for he left shortly thereafter to me how long was he in the country i'm trying to remember it appears to be two months ago i think that just to give you the dates i think this occurred in october twenty third team and he entered arizona in december of two thousand and thirteen so was it two months fred as far as his brother there was a five years fred so that's even more tenuous and even more speculative but i believe the real reason for his stated fear is rooted in generalized conditions of crime and strife  gang problems in guatemala while his fear is understandable the question here is does it is there a nexus to the protected ground even the sunni past persecution even assuming that there's someone witnesses five me who been murdered and being dismembered by a game again then beats him up and says you better not tell anyone on this or we're going to hear the question is that a central reason does that board an immigration of the border and then maybe the immigration judge for more evidence would have to address those areas in the long war to killer so should wear them but as is your honor pointed out this case just turned on nexus and nexus a lot so the board felt that because he was a witness to the gang crime he was a victim of robbery he was beaten up that this was part and parcel of generalized criminal conditions  well that the i j a and the board i think also concluded though that even if he had satisfied the next requirement that he would lose in any event because the record at least according to them would indicate that he could safely relocate somewhere else in guatemala so what's your position on i do because when he was asked about we love blood starting with a burden who has the burden with respect to past persecution on the on the witness crime well initially the burden of past persecutions on the petitioner if he's able to prove past persecution the burden shifts to the government and then the government has the burden of the initial burden is on the petitioner to prove that he has suffered past persecution and there was no such finding here one way or the other then if he's able to prove that the burden then switches to d h almost no place safe quote unquote so his three sisters remain in guatemala they've remained on granite they were not witnesses to a murder but they are sisters of statement that there's almost no place safe means that there may be someplace safe in water mala he didn't rule out that there was just no place he could relocate to that would allow him to be safe and after all he was safe for two more months and ended the murder occurred in twenty thirteen it's now twenty nineteen so you know six years has elapsed and it's again it becomes speculative and  the internal relocation as stated by the board and noted by the immigration judge is something that we would stand behind that finding as far as the claim judge win was correct there was no past torture here and it's not more likely than not that a government official would consent or acquiesce including the idea that will blindness to any torture in the future so did not need his burden of proof on either ground either on the nexus ground or on the torture ground so if there are no further questions the decision for you should be denied