commence good morning your honor as i represent the petitioner in this case and we are asking the court to grant a petition for review and remand excuse me remand his case back to the board of immigration appeals for evaluation of his claim for withholding of removal we submit that the board of immigration appeals committed to related legal mistakes when evaluating his claim first they relied too much on general reports about conditions in ghana when evaluating the specific individualized claims that he's making and related to that legal mistake is they they really evaluated the petitioners claim as if he was saying that there is a general pattern and practice of persecution against individuals that are a member of a disfavored group that he's a member of but that's not really what he claimed before the agency the petitioner was claiming that his individual situation created a fear of persecution based on his individual specific situation so the fact that general reports didn't specifically corroborate the specific aspects of his withholding claim isn't that cause a problem if he's not a member of an identifiable group i mean if you're just talking about fears of an individual then how is that different from say a person who feels that they are vulnerable to crime or to some misdeed that might occur to them when they go back how does that differ sure well what the petitioner was claiming is that he's a member of a few particular groups particular social group was was the basis of the withholding claim and one of them was that he is a successor to the throne of his particular tribe so at that point the country reports have some significance if he's if he's a member of the of tribal royalty if you will sure show that there is violence endemic violence there or something that's for sure but they do the the immigration judge and the b i a themselves admitted that there are that the country reports do mention that there are specific instances us exactly like you said your honor because the b i a did not specifically address the issue of whether the claim persecution would be based on a membership in a particular social group a perfectly good argument that he does and before is yes and and so what we're saying is if the court has issues with that that the proper thing to do is to remain so that the b i a can actually adjudicate that aspect of the claim or several aspects of this case that are  there may be i who assumed group ability so we're stuck with i i do agree i mean i think one thing that sort of you know i didn't represent the petitioner below but essentially what we're trying to raise is you know i certainly see why the judge in the b i a at first glance would think this is a bit of an odd arrangement that the third son is the heir that there's all these problems within the tribe but i think this court and other federal courts have said that you know the rest of the world isn't like america the rest of the world isn't a western country and you kind of need to step back a little bit and evaluate it not based on the sort of inherent point of view that someone who grows up in this alter would have  did you find corroboration of your client's concerns and claims about being the third son of the third person in line to to to inherit the leadership of the of the of the group and  don't you know so so you're just saying because you rely on that that that was misguided but what else was there to rely on just your clients say so no and i think basically what inconclusive while i don't think so i mean that's that's not our position your honor so we cited in the brief in the opening brief just the pages in the reply brief the actual full quotes each of the affidavit specifically said the petitioner is the third born son of the king i am so i'm just confused also about exactly what the argument is because i read could be saying you didn't meet the burden of proof this isn't withholding claim it was not a timely asylum claim so you must establish the petitioner had to establish a clear probability of future persecution and that's where this claim fell apart that you couldn't find in the country conditions reports specific enough information about see disputes to rely on the country conditions reports alone and then the affidavits were very general they don't specifically say that he was ever threatened by anyone who's identified they don't identify the factions  people that are threatening them they just convey the bank statement that he will be in danger if he returns so when so how did if that if i'm right about this that would be i did and what was the error in that i think you're right about that that's what they did i think what their mistake that they made is this court has said that a claim and the corroboration is only vague in the legal sense if it doesn't establish the elements of the withholding claim and what we're saying is it and and one of the things that the b a specifically said is the petitioner didn't establish that the third born sons are generally considered the heir to the tribe and what we're saying is well we did provide evidence we provided for affidavits specifically saying that in this specific tribe the third born son is the heir and that the petitioner is the third born son and yes that would be  and she disappears and we're you know if i may answer that so again the country reports do say that there are sporadic instances of violence against that there had been there is subject to persecution well the affidavit specifically say that that to put the petitioner has been threatened by rivals within the tribe because they don't want him to be frightened with what threaten with violence threaten with death and specifically threatened with death i didn't read that in the affidavit so i thought that there was concerned you know it might be people don't like it you'll find some people who disagree with you and now you know there could be could be resistance but resistance can take different forms tell me about the specific threat against his life by a particular person that has  affidavit i do agree that they don't specifically name names per se but they say that you know i'm going to also violence the particular kind of opposition the nature of the opposition to him i mean if i  mean i i mean i just don't it didn't seem specific at all to me but i mean sure so page two forty of the record so i was tipped off by the same informant to be very careful on arrival in the town  in correct me if i misunderstand the record none of the affidavits which i've read maybe i've missed remembering them they don't identify specific individuals or even the specific factions which pose a threat there aren't specifics about what the nature of this dispute is there aren't specifics about what the immense wealth that's alluded to in the letters where it's you know specific what it is and what form it is other than general references to land minerals that are worth and that's amount of money i think that's a fair assessment and it mirrored conflict and there are contradictory statements in the affidavit perhaps not directly contradictory but there are references to a number of different people having served or serving as regent it's hard to take from the statements and there may be some conflict with the petitioners testimony as to who the region is now  not necessarily sure about that but i think one of the sort of the main thing that we've been saying is the b i a in the immigration judge never said we think these affidavits are incredible we never they never say their own reliable statements about these being too they are not very helpful because the b i a not us under generally has to find that these are not very these are two  determination by the agency that well what our position is you only get to the substantial evidence question if the be i a properly applied the law when evaluating the evidence oh i know they're looking about and i'm now talking about whether there  clear probability of persecution just generally speaking again what our position is that that is the final stage first of the way in order for us to reverse don't we have to feel have to come to the conclusion that there was a that the evidence as as set forth compels the opposite conclusion i would disagree with that your honor i think you only need to agree with the statement of the issue by the government yes i think you only need to do that if the b i a applied the law correctly and used the proper framework of analysis and understanding the evidence and we're saying that they didn't so you can't get to that question until the b i a properly applies the law first there is no question that if the b i a find some thing on the basis of proper evidence we can only riggers if they could not have done that judge walker said  it please the court i'm christina greer on behalf of the united states attorney general there appear to be two issues in this case the first is which standard of review applies and the second is whether the petitioner has met his burden under that standard of review as to the first issue this is under substantial evidence standard of review because the question is a factual one whether petitioner submitted sufficient corroboration to establish that it's more likely than not that he will be persecuted upon returning to gone to as the third son of his father who it will inherit his father's stool and immense wealth and that because of jockeying within the family or the tr he will be at risk of danger petitioner did not meet that standard under that standard he has to show that the record compels the conclusion no one now ricky has to compel b opposite evidence of danger and if it did that then don't we have to send it back to the b i a to find wherever the basis of the facts that were differently it states that he claims that he is the son of his father that as the third son of his father he's legally the heir although the court did not see any articles to corroborate that statement the immigration judge actually even stated that didn't quite find corroboration for that statement and that's page seven of the immigration judge's decision i'm sorry i don't actually have the record cite in front of me but relying upon that the board stated that of whether he was a member of a group or not they said he is referred boards on and very for air but nonetheless he is not being discriminated against or  danger as part of a social group and it's a that point that they made that finding now them to be i e instead of going on the ground that is not a part of the of a group that is group that he is being tried for another how it happens when it comes to making alternate findings because the corroboration finding is independent lee dispositive of the case and so in order to make a separate finding on nexus or on particular social group generally emic is is your argument do i understand your argument to be the way we've found that in the second part of its holding didn't find that for the first part of its holding well my argument is that in the first part it did not find that as a fact but in the second part it's assuming that what he said it's true and then seeing if nexus in particular social circle novelist credibility for well which is  i don't think so because in my opinion this board decision doesn't state that he's not the heir it just states why don't know you misunderstand me i said if over to be i didn't say that he wasn't clear i'm sorry i may have misheard you yes i read this is stating not that the p i a s stated that he's not the air just that what the board said or what the i j a said the country conditions evidence does not indicate that third sons are presumptive heirs which is the page of the i chase treatment of this issue and your argument as you're referencing us to the first paragraph of that decision where respondent claims that is the third son of his father he is legally the heir  claims yes your honor and in the second line of that paragraph while it doesn't come to any findings it does state that he claims that as the third son of his father he's legally the heir although the court did not see any articles to corroborate that statement and that's precisely what the board reiterated in its decision when it stated that the country conditions evidence does not indicate that third sons are presumptive heirs to royal positions so in my opinion the board reiterated or just copied what the immigration judge said with a little bit of paraphrasing and both of them said the court does not find sufficient evidence to show the  the petitioner did not sufficiently corroborate his claim and here there's some consternation or there's some disagreement about the role that the implausibilities and inconsisten affidavits or letters as they don't appear to be affidavits the letters provide inconsistent information or are inconsistent with prior letters from the same persons but they're all they are in fact general in nature so the argument that the government is making is that by looking at the record as it is the record does not compel the conclusion that petitioner has a stablished it's more likely than not that he will be persecuted  which is no means clear then is very nothing evidence to say that as an ear he is in danger there is not your honor the country conditions reports refer to chief disputes and a chief who has died but they don't refer to issues with presumptive heirs and then his letters are very general for example the letter from his brother talks about threats says that his brother is likely to be murdered in the event of him taking up his role as chief but it doesn't say from who it says that the current position is currently held by seventy five year old man and is being challenge and the current political situation does not auger well for my as i see that i'm almost out of time may i finish this one the family lawyer says due to complications and relations among the family petitioner is in danger still does not say from who by whom what that doesn't allow us to affirm as we would a district court we shouldn't send it back to the n b a to do its job and my art or what i'm saying is that the board did properly find that between the country conditions reports and these affidavits there's just not enough there he has to show it's more likely than not that he will be persecuted that and from an objective point reasonable person standard that he will be subjected to persecution and he did not show that based on the general net or the general statements within the letters is not an assigned them situation it's that withholding situation with a higher standard of proof yes your honor  so i did just want to bring up a few points i believe one of the questions that your honor had basically been saying is if we do find is if the court finds that the b i a made a mistake on whether he's an heir if they remain and is there enough evidence that a reasonable adjudicator could approve the case and i think that there is and i am ph two thirty two of the record which is a state department report on conditions specifically says that there are disputes because of lack of clear succession doesn't mean that we would find if we were finding you know that the evidence would come out that way what you're saying is the b i a might find that even if we would yes that a reasonable adjudicator looking at this evidence could say because the state department says that there are fights in tribes that result in death because of lack of clear succession that a reasonable fact finder could say that the petitioner in his particular circumstance meets his burden of proof and i did find so on page two thirty nine one of the affidavit or one of the letters says that the petitioner all days can only be based on our finding that  case is opposing counsel says we left down yes which we would agree with your honor that the i j a essentially believe that the petitioner was the heir but statement they say that the that is the country condition evidence does not establish that presumptive years are specifically targeted and chieftaincy just yes but i don't think that that's necessarily relevant in this case the petitioner isn't saying every air is targeted he's saying that he's targeted because he's an heir and the state department specifically says that there are deaths and injuries as a result of succession disputes within tribe so even if there is one hundred tribes and only two of them have fights and that result in harm if the petitioner is one of those two out of one hundred he can meet his burden of proof and it doesn't matter that in the other ninety eight tribes the succession of resolved peacefully thank