clients why because neither mr mr o nereus proposed particularized social group otherwise known as p s g nor the documentary records by him in support of that yes you were considered as a day separately made a nexus ruling which is that there was no evidence that he had a well founded the year of persecution based on the fact that it would never be known that he had worked for the us government correct yes he got so i'm just trying to put together those two points because you would think you'd have to identify the particular social group st in order to do a nexus analysis correct yet when they did the next analysis it seemed like they got the right group and of course for purposes of when they analyze nexus they seem to be focused on the right question about the group would he be known to have been not just westernized but have worked for the u s government so i'm just a little puzzled how we're supposed to review what the b i did because i'm inclined to agree with you that they never made a separate finding that his working for the us government was not a p s g but they did make a nexus ruling that seems to me to have implicitly assumed that  particular source of route thirty had this or the next two was the one that you're saying he's asserting which is that he worked for the us government do i have it right here's what i would suggest in that regard  read the b i is nexus analysis it seems focused on whether people in iraq would know that he had worked for the us government if he goes to iraq troops and i think what i would say to that is i think it's there's no get the particular social group right correct and you were correct i think in reading the b i in saying that they never made a separate ruling that his claim of being a  the us military as part of yesterday or as a separate independent yes the response to the government's contention that iraqis who sisted the u s military in iraq are distinguishable from iraqis who provide assistance in the united states that he provided that assistance and will persecute him as a result whether he provided that assistance in the us or in iraq what's the evidence that supports act a claim that the distinction doesn't matter because i thought  evidence in the record that there is a reason to fear persecution even if the only assistance you gave the us government was assistance given in the united states there's a so there's evidence in the record to educate  going to prosecute on the basis of that assistance alone regardless of where what what is what evidence in the record supports the statement you just made it may i don't have any evidence in the record relative to a let me ask you if i may one additional question so sometimes will say for example a founded fear based on persecution for religious preferences we might say  that's either immutable or a characteristic that needn't be changed in should not have to be hidden and so i'm getting at this notion of others may not find out about the fact that he is in a group if it's a  the evidence is pretty slim that other people would learn about it so i guess maybe i have a two part question the st part being it is the fact or the finding that he could keep his cooperation and assistance hidden relevant and nd we also sometimes will affirm the b i e s position that you could live in another part of the from if a person claiming asylum can relocate to another part of that country state a huge country like india avoid persecution of northern india by living in the south that's a safe or his fear may not be well founded because people may not find out about it based on the evidence that's in the record so far that's true and so is this if there is no evidence that any potential persecutor knows right now he was found to have a subject if your future persecution so this is really about the object of your analysis whether reasonable person in his shoes would feel a well founded fear of persecution based on the facts s military employment petitioner right now had the burden to demonstrate that the harm that he fears upon returning was on account of one of those grounds and the agency reasonably and with the support of substantial evidence of the record found that he had not here in this case the dictionary has made three returns extended returns within a period of five years he took added steps to leave as he had to do so as he was on probation and he had to go through the formalities of getting permission to leave he also traveled along with a family member who had also participated in assisting the military for cultural and other and other  in new york and texas for those two things and all those cases on those returns neither harm came to the brother or him who had previously like been involved in the military i want to know for the record  what was his longest return because i do believe that the two longest where they were a month and a half and then i think there was another one in two thousand and seventeen they averaged about six weeks i didn't i don't think that there's an exact cause in the record just made all you saw were if you look at the administrative record there the authorizations to leave person from that he had obtained from the district court where these returns in relation to his attending the funeral of  grandparents i do believe two of them are in the other one was an undisclosed i did not know the actual departure and i don't have it off the top of my head but i know that two of them were i believe the most recent trip he travelled with a boat and believe it was thirteen family members accompanied him while he was there while he was there he admitted the suffered no harm suffered you know no incidences that he claimed would be you know that he fears upon his return and the government does no step addition or didn't file for application as early as two thousand and eleven and then you know based on a fear of returning it had voluntarily returned here  his cousin or his brother also testified that the people that do have the anti american sentiment are the iraqi people and he even testified that the iraqi government itself was actually pro american so that involvement with the military and how that was a distinction without a difference i mean throughout those even evidence of record demonstrates that the government was able to observe the people who were working on iraqi soil and actually made lists and they were able to discover people personally here this is based on a speculation that somehow he would be found and then persecuted but even then it comes back to as i determined that there's no proof that anybody would be able to discern that without he encountered threats of harm when he returned when he returned when he was in iraq i do believe and i believe if you if you go back on the testimony and if you want specific regarding this information he basically testified that he went back and he was stopped because they thought he was american eyes he said he was wearing shorts he had a tattoo he was identifiable and that swings that to the american eyes which this court is in the secularized type of westernized person which is court is repeatedly struck down as being not a group that would be identifiable i mean this was not it not based on the fact that he had any during which he encountered threats of harm in favor of not finding a well founded fear of future persecution well i think that you're looking at two separate reasonings for being mean he was himself even testified that he was he knows the customs if he dressed accordingly if he did this that he wouldn't be sought out or looked at and he admitted that and he admitted that it was one hundred and thirty dollars degrees that was gray shorts and a tank top it was really hot and that that created a issue for people that they were able to you know see who he was and even his own family said we didn't dress in according to the customs but we know the customs even admitted that he would be able to do that and i think the immigration judge also noted that you know this also translates back to the americanised and westernized claim that group in he wants you can't transfer that i'm sure the next you can't use harm for one reason and transfer it onto your next particular social group each can't he can't piggyback that on there and state that because they look at him as an american they're now going to persecute him because they keep he he worked with the united states military while he was in the united states is theory an issue in this case about whether on his assistance to the u s military is a could not a civil group in their view i believe so i believe that they i mean i believe that the i j a noted that and they found that but i don't think that the board adequately addressed that and i think that's why military something that he should be required to hide and i don't i mean i don't believe that it i don't believe that it would be deemed as a take a protected in the gay character that he's not required to change or hide it mean this was this was years after the event over a decade there is like any other and he's got proof that there's other people that have been there that have worked at home and then come back to you know our sorry home being united states i don't believe that it would be any different than basically saying that for the westernized if you mean that if you dress accordingly it would be in be no different i mean he would he would just have to follow customs there was there is no issue in this case is there that he had a subjective figure no supposed to go to hide their past contacts with the u s government i don't believe there's any evidence of record that has anybody having any knowledge of side of his voluntary disclosure of anything that requires people that they i mean they they have to disclose you know anything that they had done in the past or in the end he i don't know what kind of harm he would be suffering if he did keep it to himsel i don't know if or if he did disclose it then would he willfully be attempting to like put himself out there there's there's nothing he's got nothing in writing the record that shows there's any record of him doing it other than his own private disclosure to the individual so it sounds like that where you are saying is that he did disclose his relationship with the u s military or if somehow it was revealed testimony of the kidnapping of his coworkers his sister's testimony their recent experiences in iraq  persecution no i mean obviously the government just agrees with that finding i mean i think we're getting back to the point where he's conflating what happened to him and what you're bringing up incidents it happened because he's but then there's nothing in the  decision that even if it were found out in iraq that he had worked for the u s government he would not be at risk of persecution it may be that you think he wouldn't be but if i read to be a decision is not a word limit you know so the decision hinges entirely on what the record shows with respect to how likely it is that somebody in iraq would find out ok so with respect to what is the i pointing to in the record to support its conclusion that he unreasonably thought that it would be i don't know reasonable to think that somebody would find out he had worked for the u s government if he went back to iran i believe it extends back down to the petitioners burden of proof i mean he had the burden of demonstrating that he would in fact be harmed if somebody found out about it he re he's saying it's reasonable for him to think that somebody would find out ok what is the basis for the conclusion that that was not a reasonable thing to think that it would be found out but i believe going back over the three returns after he had to actually protect anything anything besides his own the fact that he went on business for six weeks at the mouth and that during those visits it was not found out that yes and that there is and there's no record evidence pertaining to people that have worked with you know in the united states versus those that are actually performing duties with the u military while on the soil in iraq counsel let me ask you an uncomfortable question or at least i find it uncomfortable but i feel compelled to ask the question under the straight circumstances in which the federal judiciary finds itself in trying to fulfill our obligation to be open and available to the public we conduct these proceedings in a way that they are excess worldwide so this is a public proceeding that anybody can get access to but does that do if anything to your argument that his status will not be found out at mean you can obviously take judicial notice however i mean the government would still stand it would not be sufficient to meet is pregnant proof burden of proof that that it would be a would be and he would be found out it would be found out other questions from the panel thank you very much miss morning mr linus you reserve two minutes yes your honor sir i'd like to briefly address the issue of  future persecution i would know that three cases relied upon by the in that regard involve negative credibility determinations prior to the consideration of return trips  to or for pleasure for vacation he went for family obligations basically and in that context i would suggest it doesn't undercut the objectives for your issue and i've suggested it didn't have thank you thank you