please the court my name is carol edwards and i'm here today to represent mr hernandez ramos we have two appeals before the court today was that little louder louder ok sir we have two cases before the court today one of them is an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress which was a request to terminate the second is an appeal from the denial on a motion to reopen for purposes of filing for  asylum so we're asking for two different options both of them involve remanding for terminations or remanding for purposes of having an asylum hearing we have presented the information about the motion to suppress principally because the board of immigration appeals is basically saying that it doesn't matter if it's agree just because any time that we take you into custody and we run your fingerprints and we look through our system and our and your biometrics because immigration is also now done by a photograph that when we for whatever we find out is for purposes of identification not investigation in is that it has to do with what are they why are they getting into their records are they in trying to investigate the person further because they haven't been able to identify them for you not have you heard of the underlying document which at that time we never even had an opportunity to develop why it was there or even what it was because they said it was a candidate bio and it looks like a screen shot and we asked for an opportunity to cross examine or try to find out how those were developed and instead the we received a decision saying our motion to suppress was denied on the identity issue without getting into it so in terms of how it was developed or why honestly can't say because i don't know at that time in two thousand when each one of those documents were supposedly developed how it was done or what was the purpose at that point what i do know is that when he was stopped on january first of two thousand and nine and he was pulled over in a washington car with washington plates and showed a washington valid washington id that has real name on it that identified him that further that that he was arrested after that fact and they did further investigation even though they knew who he was at that point because they actually had his identification the fact still mean he's legally here just because they know who you are no it does not and i agree that it doesn't show anything i mean in certain states now it actually does because certain states have said that they will not issue a driver's license without proof of lawful status in the united states but washington state is not one of the states that has followed that at this time and that's why we when you go to a federal building sometimes they won't accept a washington license because they say it doesn't show proof of status so you also on your motion to reopen yes you have to make a pr showing and you're saying on the motion to reopen i guess that sure you can show asylum and cat i guess you know it's a whole yes what's the basis upon which standard for winning a motion to reopen although it is it does require certainly prime a facia proof of eligibility of relief of the statutory requirements it does not require that he show that he's going to win he just i have a with you i agree with you but you have to make a prime officious showing of what that if let's say if someone puts in their motion to reopen  i want to be openness because i like frozen yogurt and i can eat that in the united states and not in mexico should that motion for it to reopen be granted no it shouldn't because it doesn't meet the statutory requirements right and so you have to make a prime a face or showing for asylum and cat so i i know that you know what's unique about m case from those proper any other thirty something male from mexico so first of all your honor the other cases that have been before this court that i've been able to find a motion to reopen with the issue on social group and mexican males have been ones that have been fully developed at a hearing and i want to social group tell us what a social group is so it's seems to me what you're saying official group is his and that have lived in the i have been americanised in the united states is what what we were asking for is an opportunity to develop the social group which we believe is tied to his family and it was a disease the family his family his family who have been the the other point and the reason i couldn't articulate that very clearly in your in your paperwork i can appreciate that but i understood it to me that it was you're talking about a family in the social group and if you were to look at the documentation that was initially submitted to the board of immigration appeals in support of the motion to reopen you will see that there was quite detailed information a very long or pretty specific description from our client about people who had specifically been hurt and injured by the law say toasts and why he has fearful that when he comes back he would be immediately have the same problems that his family has and the court said will wear the b i i said well you didn't have problems before you left and of course that's our whole point is that's why it's changed circumstances and the i do want to point out the did say the information we provided was material and that's part they didn't say it wasn't material and that's why we're denying the motion to reopen they didn't say it wasn't changed circumstances  that because of the family being attacked by the last say toss and because the government is essentially let's say just comes in and ask them questions and then the government comes in and ask them questions and then they get taken down to potentially taken down by the government arrested people disappear we did provide some documentation the people have disappeared at the government's instance there's a high level of corruption where you don't know with the government which side somebody is on so when you have actors people on his family disappeared he's just saying random people his uncle was murdered in his legs were chopped off he had to godsons that had there one of them had names carved into his their stomach so very significant and severe incidents and some of which not not we don't have the we didn't have the death certificates on that we indicated we were trying to get them it was very difficult because people were very fearful of going to authorities and asking for information about these people who had obviously been murdered who'd been shot but we did provide information and of course with a motion to reopen the the declaration or the affidavit of our client is deemed to be accurate for purposes of the motion to reopen so the board should have looked at that and said if these facts are true is w stating is there enough that you deserve a hearing to to flush out these questions and our point is not that i'm not arguing the case in chief the you know that he had a full hearing and now i'm before you and i'm arguing he should have one all i'm asking at this point and all i believe that he's entitled to at this point is not for you to enter an order saying he's entitled to it but simply that he the case should be remanded to the immigration judge because he me this this fairly low standard of showing the statutory eligibility the board of immigration appeals didn't say he didn't deserve it i'm denying it on discretionary basis i'm not going to grant the motion to reopen they said you don't meet the statutory requirements and we don't even think that you put enough in here that's even interesting to us and if you look at a number of the mexican cases where people have said well if you're americanised and you're going back there that's not enough they're saying in general it's exist it's delinquents we don't even know who's really going after us and in this case he said specifically he's concerned about this specific law the law say toaster still very active in mexico and we did submit documentation to the board at that time saying they were in fact active so he does have a danger i would like to reserve a few minutes for a bottle thank you thank you please the court stephanie hannis for respondent the the court should deny the two petitions for review being examined here in the first petition for review which really is to suppress ssion of identity evidence there's no doubt that petitioner is a native and citizen of mexico who lacks authorization to be in the united states he conceded that in his asylum application which he filed with his motion to reopen and  declaration supporting not he also explains that in two thousand and eight his then wife had filed a petition for alien relative on his behalf nevertheless he still claims that the agency erred when it refused to suppress evidence that was discovered after independent evidence which was discovered after a vehicle stop but the agency reasonably denied suppression and refused refuse to terminate the proceedings because president president dictates that identity information that's obtained as part of a routine booking procedure in this case the thirteen shows that this was just eight form of processing the intake of someone who had already the immigration judge had found it already it needed to being in the united states illegally is is not is not evidence that can be surprised or interested not sufficient to establish that he has a clear probability of facing torture at the hands of or with the acquiescence of the mexican government how can we be competent to be applied the right standard i think you can be confident in that by looking at the totality of the agency's decision earlier in the the board decision it presents the standard that needs to be used for determining whether reopening is appropriate it provides that the person needs to establish prima fashion eligibility it's in the first paragraph on the second page and then it goes on to explain how to determine prima fashion eligibility the must show a reasonable likelihood that the requirements had been satisfied so if you take that in it is a pretty low standard you know we can't really weigh the evidence right there so what what's lacking in the prime if they should case here well first first let me say that the supreme court has explained that motions to reopen should be disobey verd and that the and that the person the alien who is moving for reopening has a very high burden so i i just want to put that out there but to specifically address your your concerns the this situation here respondent acknowledges that there's there's a lot of very violent crime that occurs in mexico as a result of the does but in but in this particular instance the as the board pointed out there there aren't any of the of the was his has done so some family members though not his mother or father or five siblings his father's god son and uncle a friend and his dad's friends daughter and the board's decision points out that that's not enough evidence to show that there would be any interest in the petitioner in this case if he were to return to mexico in petitioner's declaration he even points out in some in some instances there just isn't any knowledge of why exactly the people were targeted not but  instead in one instance like in relation to the father's god son there's of the thought that the seed is believed he had provided information to the police there is no indication in this case that the petitioner has worked with social group as young hispanic males who are americanized after living in the united states for many years and who have family members in mexico who have been targeted by los zetas now in this case the agency did not did not claim that the that the stated social group was not a social group your honour's correct that family can be a social group the decision in this case relates to the petitioner showing his likelihood of being harmed based on that that social group that's not the right test at this stage is that it's a likelihood that he would be entitled to  not the likelihood of the belief can we hold as a matter of war that his showing was so weak that there was no likelihood that he would be entitled to believe well that you don't have to say that there's that there's no likelihood to the extent that yes yes that's that's that's correct your honor the board found that he has made his evidence was material in terms of that it with he presented material evidence supporting his cause i think that was in regard to him saying that he had new and previously on available evidence  discussion of whether he had provided new and previously unavailable evidence which is something that's required if one is that you know he presented new new web host hearing evidence that was material to his cl that's what i thought these i mean the paragraph that i think you're referring to is the second paragraph on page two of the the board's  the second paragraph yes so i mean i'm reading through it again if that is what your honour's referring to and i just don't see a discussion of  materiality in there i do know that in general a motion to reopen is will not be granted unless the the information that's provided is material  thought so in this case the the initial the way that the board set out its decision is very very reasonable it explains the basis for the petitioners claim it then lays out the la for reopening it properly and correctly providing the prima fashion standard and that that what that means which is a reasonable likelihood that the requirements for relief have been satisfied  d it does it does explain that he had the ability to file a motion to reopen based on this new evidence that that wasn't available to him when he initially was a place and proceedings and then goes on to discuss how that that evidence was not sufficient to justify reopening and a hearing in immigration court based on on the evidence that he presented jim i did go back and read the board of immigration appeals on the issue of materiality in what the judge and i want to be clear with the court and that is they say that they found that there was new evidence and they didn't specifically mention materiality instead they went into the prime aphasia so yeah so i just want to be clear in that the other issue again on the motion to reopen i believe that the  case that came out august first of two thousand and sixteen by this court which is solemn versus lynch which is at eight thirty one fed third eleven thirty three which is another case on the motion to reopen an context and this is one where there was new evidence submitted in the court again talks about the standard and what's really required and also talks about how that the judicial review of the motion to reopen serves as a safety valve in the asylum process and could you have done a better job on it would seem that the social group initially that's articulated is you know men young mean i would agree that just because you're americanised and you're going to mexico is not going to be a sufficient social group but what happened when we were trying to articulate a social group i think the social crew could have just talked about his family but the reason that he is more at risk than others who are generally going back to mexico has to do with the fact that his family has been targeted and that he will likely face that when he goes back from the united states we would also argue that he will stand out and they will be aware of him upon him coming back because he is a another person new to the area and you've got people who are patrolling the area they're going to notice somebody but the fact alone without the family in the social group would not be successful before this court and i would acknowledge that and i think the social group that we've articulated is includes family people who have families who have been targeted by the law say to us and that's part of what the social group and maybe we did it too narrowly but for purposes of the motion to reopen and the sunnis get americanize that was it raised the flag of the but when you look at the bet when you look at the material that was submitted i understood it to be a family basically yes thank you and i and i hate believe that the court also understood that the board of immigration understood that as well but i do want to point out that the whole line of cases on social group have developed since we had this board cases so then case wasn't there when they made this decision and the social visibility and all these issues have changed substantially and just for that fact alone on the social group we believe it's appropriate to re  and to the board on that issue alone let alone the fact that he never got a hearing and we believe that because the standard although it's it i'm not going to say it is significantly low it's not there's no chance it's exactly what the court said there's no reasonable possibility i don't think anyone can find that there's no reasonable possibility that he could meet the standard he never had a chance and that's why we couldn't week we could have filed for asylum in the first instance before the court but these things hadn't happened so there was no reason to do that at that time it wouldn't have been it would have been a frivolous claim if i could if we could have filed one that says americanised but we didn't