violation of his back to stand illegal entry and exit laws faces a media arrest and detention at the airport immediately a product of arrival in his back a stand if he's deported and as the agency found the  pakistan authorities will torture him once he's in detention agency committed both factual and legal error in its decision that it is unlikely that mr obama to have would even be arrested first the facts compel the opposite conclusion and expert that the agency found credible testified that mr bomb atop his ninety nine percent likely to be detained immediately upon arrival at the airport you know that because he  he didn't comply with the exit entry requirements and yes your honor that is or is it because he would he would be removed know that he had been convicted of a crime a serious crime so what did the expert testified to the expert testified that he has this ninety nine percent risk of being immediately pulled into secondary inspection detained and interrogated at which point he would already be subject to torture and the factors that she found would get him into detention would be the first red flag would be that he is stateless so he doesn't have any documentation so they would immediately pull him aside for that and even the i j a found that from his eye to thirteen the pakistan government is going to be aware prior and definitely immediately upon entry that he has this heavy criminal conviction and that he also violated the illegal acts that laws and that he is a former refugee who previously complained about the government of his back to stand so these are all factors that would be immediately apparent to the us back a saying government and we can see from the record how back assange government treats returned asylum seekers which is a highly analogous example at the at the record at  seven sixty three shows that between january two thousand and fifteen and july two thousand and sixteen over five hundred people were forcibly returned abducted actually from other countries with the cooperation of the potentially dispositive evidence by stating that there were a dozen people who were returned in this capacity but it was actually over five hundred so in failing to look  at the actual consequences for people similarly situated to mr obama type of she committed an error that this court found and called the holder is not permissible it's not permissible for the judge to decision but when it came to her primary analysis about why he wouldn't be subject to a more likely than not risk of torture her chain of events test that she posited was that first they would be aware that he was stateless that second they would be aware that he's stateless a criminal deportee who spent a long time in the united states and he's a minority christian but she didn't include in those factors that exit visa violation and so even though she found if he's detained for those factors he would be tortured she found that he wouldn't be arrested but she didn't meaningfully contend with that evidence that said once he gets to the airport he's immediately facing the body that he says is going to torture him in presenting these factors but he would be arrested for so and in doing so the judge failed  to just contend with the actual reality on the ground that he would face at the airport i just have a side question related to the record but is he in custody is your honor he's been in custody since he's fifteen years old and he's now about document and there was no affirmative response to that so and so it's not very clear what the actual possibility of him getting the travel document is given that he's stateless but the united states needs he needs to obtain a travel document for him before they can remove him to his back yes and in order to do so they'll need to ask him or they'll need to present his form to thirteen to the government of a spec a stand so it's possible the expert testified that he could obtain a travel document but it's not it doesn't say that he'll have some kind of permanent status when he gets there i read that if  n won't issue a paper to let him be sent back there what happens to well in that case he's has the option to try to get out of detention on federal habeas relief but the case before us today is what is his likelihood of torture if he is returning and that's the only just looking at those factors that he presents when he i arrives in as pakistan that's the only way that we can decide whether or not he's eligible for deferral and or the cat is to decide whether or not it's more likely than not that once he is deported he would be tortured so we thought the record sure would clear probability of torture upon return and the petition should be granted and the  russia will take him well he doesn't have any connection to russia your honor so they come to jacob stand which is right next door and he is stateless so he doesn't have any status in any country do the a stand or he remains here yes your honor let me ask you this if you prevail here at some point does he get a bail hearing he has had a bond thank you thank you i reserve the rest of my time ok thank you your honor may i please the court joseph already for the attorney general your honor substantial evidence supports the i j a and the board's denial of the claim for deferral of remove all under the convention against torture and i know it wasn't talked about just now but t admittedly does engage in torture and its prison systems there was no evidence that petitioner was likely to be placed and detention upon return to account you know to be i mean you know i'm only speaking for myself and i read this record very carefully but i don't quite understand how the i j a reached that conclusion and i understand that just by as i read the expert's opinion and her testimony it's really compelling and the jury found her credible and yes she did your honor and i would point out this the experts testimony what she testified to was that particularly that he would be placed and detention for example as far as the criminal deportees that if she stated that that factor would subject them to such a special supervision from the government it wasn't necessarily that he would be placed in detention i know she mentioned for example that the government tends to even then that was just as far as the special supervision she said that the government tends to put people under their special supervision for the balance of the time basically as you understand from this case he was sentenced to one hundred months in prison and there was beyond that twenty years of probation for his crimes here she said that the government tends to place the person on this type of probation type of thing but you also you're pretty clear that if it people don't comply with the exit re entry requirements  a travel document and then i'd be perfectly happy to discuss the travel document issue as well i did speak to us obviously i'm government counsel i can do that but they as far as the part of the record it is not your i mean because this is a petition for review the removal order you're not going to get all the questions about travel documents and air that would be as my colleague says and the a b s context that's not this type of case  four when he had been a miner at he would have been a miner to have been a miner he'd look at this mine so he left with his mother and the mother specifically said the only reason why she got the document because she told the government that she was leaving miss  the expert she never spoke to any of these witnesses she just went by what she read and she believes she read in the declaration and and from there i had to thirteen and she specifically said  testimony was based on i think they didn't have a document at the time she did not know that the mother actually did have a document i believe that document appears at page six twenty six of the record and if you look at the mother's declaration at page six zero two she also mentions it and as i said mr obama also said his mother left but believe in two thousand and one she tried to get a passport apparently one was issued or something like that but the government told her it was lost and it took a while she filed an application for a i believe it was a loss or passport and all they gave her was the there's trouble document that permitted her to leave and she applied for refugee status in the country obviously from the u s consulate and left on that base but when she got to the united states she didn't register with these back and the only thing you get that from is from the experts testimony and i know that my colleague mentioned that in the brief the problem with that again seeking refugee in this country because of their religious beliefs that it would think directly to the consulate in register well i mean it would be ni entry and entering the country and the law that is above the illegal re entry and that effect is at page five twenty nine but it says absolutely nothing about people needing to register  so they go i'm going to the and saw as far as his being stateless that's not that's not a question in this case they specifically said that the person is likely to be treated as stateless that the government is likely to find out about that but there are three thousand or more that the country reports and again i'm sure you've seen it in each of the three country ports that are in this record live peaceful or live in the country i can't say one way or another that they live peacefully but there is no evidence that such people are tortured persecuted or any of this is obviously a torture case but that they are harmed and anyway in fact the expert at the time when it asked on cross examination by government  specifically admitted that if the person had remained in the country mr obama it would have been fine so there is no evidence in this record of anyone similarly situated to mr obama to off and particular criminal deportee stateless at applied for refugee status and or had obtained refugee status and the us and a seventh day christian being harmed in the country there is evidence of journalist muslim extremist  political opponents human rights activists those type of people returning to the country and being placed in prison and and harmed that way but anyone and mr  circumstances petitioner had literally no evidence in this record that such people upon returning to the country are placed in prison and tortured and so that's the key question here whether they would be placed in prison so you were going to mention a little bit on the side not it's not in the record is the government likely and so i can say that definitively what i did do is speak to the regional immigration officer who does deal with that particular region of the world as far as obtaining travel documents and he said he sees no reason why they would not be able to obtain a travel document and i see a few seconds ticking down what my colleague mentioned as far as during the a removal order that starts the process i speaking to the officer and i see my time is up i'll say this quickly and speaking to the officer last thursday the big question he did say that we would at least get the ball rolling on getting all our documents together there's a birth certificate in this record and looking at the mothers and the fathers mind you the father was in his back citizen at the time i don't know why in particular the father didn't testify air only the mother who is from what you kurdistan but i don't know why the father didn't testify or at least we didn't get some documentation about the father that potentially could have  agencies decisions thank you he likely to be released in this country yes you're on as after being convicted of raping and sodomizing a five year old yes your honor the u s supreme court has found that no matter  a person can't be indefinitely detained in immigration detention forever and that sort of the basis for said vitus versus davis but just to address a few points that my colleague mentioned he holder and it's important to note that the experts credibility was never questioned by the agency so in the absence of any rebutting evidence her test subject him to these additional choir requirements but it's very important to note that those are only if he escapes arrest and prosecution from being immediately apprehended at the airport which the expert said it's a ninety nine percent chance that that's going to happen so all of those other factors only come up if he's somehow able to evade that and there is no evidence in the record your honor to support that finding that he would  escape arrest and prosecution at the airport so i'm out of time but thank you and we ask that you vacate the decision of the agency thank you thank you gone to the ames case but just for planning purposes of all those in the court room after this ams case is argue the panel will take fifteen minute recess before the argument on w