the united states attorney general good morning we're ready to proceed when you are or with instructions to reconsider the case consistent with an opinion that would say interpret the next requirement for asylum to narrowly here you are and for those reasons you have to grant this petition the st issue that  is in from the court the court's asking specific questions on is whether the immigration judge actually had jurisdiction over mr president case because the lack of a proper notice to appear under the statute now  three distinct questions on this issue and i know the court's done research and this is now a well litigated issue around the circuit courts and we have had a recent decision from the th circuit on this that that's right just less than a we could get your honor a and i'm going to actually i'm going to use the print ok us code cites that none of them engage with the idea that the language of or even consider it the language notice to appear blah blah blah blah blah blah blah so none of them consider the question that we have asked you in the st question that we distributed to the parties so i wonder if you could address that for  no i think the answers clear it's unambiguous and that's it the language says an alien shall receive a written notice and then apparent that it calls or to call it a notice to appear and then it defines what must be in a notice to appear to be a quote notice to appear i don't think there's any wiggle room around that it's the name of the statutory section is initiation of removal proceedings and then we go down to the subsection which talks about the notice to appear and the other aspect of that statute is the structure and the subsection a defined what's in the notice to appear the particular provision here is g one and two and it's really important to see that the notice to appear in the time and date are crucial to aliens who are facing removal proceedings because if you notice gee one is the required of time and place in g two is a requirement that the notice to appear tell the alien the consequences of missing that initial hearing the consequences are very easy you get ordered removed in absentia that's it if you don't show up you can order removed and then the remainder of the next section of the statute says make makes this highlights the importance of the saying that if the court decides to change that time date it must go through another personal service and proper way of getting it to him and so to answer your question your honor i think it i don't know where they would be ambiguity in that particular provision that says an alien place even for for purposes of removal proceedings for our purposes that is as opposed to stop time which was at issue there because you know as you know the pereira court said we're just talking about the stop time provision that's appear that applies to any other sections that say it applies to it and i would say it applies to any reference to a quote notice to appear it's unambiguous and we only have to decide for purposes of  can't i mean the captain the agency dictate its own jurisdiction that seems wrong to me i agree with that your honor but i think it can dictate when jurisdiction vests when it starts in immigration court and there's good reason for this that the is that different from from dictating its own jurisdiction well i think i don't think the regulation could expand its jurisdiction that it's given out of the statute but i think it can determine when that jurisdiction starts and when it ends and a gain this isn't applying for benefits right this isn't applying for relief from removal this is the analog to an indictment right this is saying the case is starting now and what the room brawl making says that this regulation was intended to take into account the agency's resources that at that point ins which was a part of department justice before it could have jurisdiction start an immigration court it would need to have the prosecutors necessary have the resources available determine which court it should be in going to be clear here that the reason i think you have a lot of merit in the way the statute reads clean so why have you been losing to all of the other circuits that as i understand it your fellow actually got noticed by the supplement which said you know you should appear in this climate in this place and that that is good enough to make that jurisdiction if you want to vest if you want to say continue that as a practical matter that's what did it and i'm i right that because of the way the service is operated if your argument succeeds affective every removal proceeding in the country has to start over because they're all out of jurisdiction is that fair your honor i would i would certainly every i would say the  the agency identifies infinite sets of the brief misunderstands and underestimate their power of notice and comment rule making when congress leaves open questions i know they can fix it for the future but i'm just saying it isn't is not a fair reality of the way they have operated and not to say you know there's fee out used to the column you know let the heavens fall but the alternative is to say that that  when you actually got notice of the actual hearing that you're going to have that will call that best dangerous stiction and then all of these other circuits of insane i gree this via the circuits i've been saying and i those decisions so that group of decisions is not going to be reopened i also believe that the agency has the ability to engage in notice and comment rule making and and fix jurisdictional defects if it gets to decide when jurisdiction vests then it can do so now and we've seen the current executive beat use the exception to the ministry procedure act to initiate rules that start the day they file them on the federal register this happened this past week with retroactively if you're right can they retroactively say jurisdiction vested because of some other reason well your honor i think that under their current regulation jurisdiction vestment serve the notice to appear i don't know why they couldn't issue proper said that's that the subject matter jurisdiction are you so that's a claims processing or oh i would say it's a jurisdictional rule your honor and i would say that it's so the thing that i don't understand about that argument is you know the supreme court has told us that the congress you get the best jurisdiction and you know the statutes clearly say the immigration judge shall have authority to decide these cases so i don't i don't i think you're our movie more helpful to me if you assume that it's a claims processing role well then and then what happens to your case your honor if it's if this is a claim processing rule jurisdiction and we move on to the asylum argument which i think the be a here has interpreted the nexus requirement far too narrowly with my time kind of running out i'll just point the court to a proper scope of the nexus requirement and i would urge the court to adopt her analysis in that case thank you yes that's one question you said if it's a claim processing rule we move on to the merits and is that good morning we've kept our office busy this week our only yes good morning your believe i guess we've had somebody from your office every day this week and there are two of you here today yes there are thank you i have found your document what actually gives the immigration court the can strike i want to just back you up a little bit if you don't mind yes yes we had asked some questions and i'd like to ask if you could address those and none of the other courts have addressed this issue in this is not an ambiguous about the fact that the notice to appear that is defined in that section governs removal proceedings the government's position on that very  seedings but the core issue in twelve to ninety is the fact that it addresses the notice that needs to be provided to the illing in well for removal proceedings to cummins whereas under the regulations  more than one central function in and yes it's a charging document but it rejected the government's argument that it was limited to a charging document yes and it's set and it's sad that if it did not have to include the time and date of appearance then what could happen is the notice to appear could be issued and years later the government could give one day's notice of when the hearing is and that would that would that would basically disallow the person to be able effectively to retain counsel for that hearing and that would be a serious problem so it couldn't be construed that way it seems like that same problem would apply here the notice to appear is one document fulfilling two different purposes under the statute the notice to appear fulfills the notice requirements that the court so on one hand we're talking about requirements and on the other hand we're talking about a charging document that best jurisdiction with immigration porch when it is filed there so that i know the story i'm right how do we get to it besting  you know for proceedings after april one thousand nine hundred and seven it uses the same terms as the statute it's of the you know refers to the notice of appear to appear and then the service requirements alien i hear what you're saying but here's the problem and maybe that would be ok before perra but then the supreme court and her dad notice to appear is a definition in one thousand two hundred and twenty nine perenna so so that's where the problem do anything affecting the alien until the date and time notice is given well they'd regulations clearly state that the immigration court will provide that information  says every removal proceeding conducted under section two hundred and forty dollars of the act to determine the deport ability or inadmissibility of an alien is commenced by the filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court that notice to appear as used there does not mean of notice to appear service of the notice to appear shall be in accordance with section two hundred and thirty nine dollars of the act and that is the same section that defines notice to appear with time and place in it and says you know service on that under the under the on the statute it is a notice requirement to the alienware under the regulations it is it's one of the definitions of a charging document cannot kind of give you one more chance so notice to appear in the statute it is about initiating the removal proceedings and then in the two regulations that we've been talking about it also refers charging document on the regulation and it serves the function of the notice on that a statute but it is not a but if it doesn't detain the information required by the statute i'm sorry on it but if it doesn't contain the information required by the statute it does contain the information required by the statute to the extent that a notice of hearing is sent out later if it is not included if the information included in the n c a a is not included in the notice next requirement for an asylum case it's at least one central reason that a public case recognise th circuit doesn't have published precedent on that but it goes through the litany of circuit courts that have some general rules that tend to agree that is that you can person you're going to have many different motives and as long as one of those motives is based on a protected ground and it's not insignificant it's not tangential it's somehow central that that can be sufficient and here the determined that my client's family that was our membership in particular social group of his family his father in law was not one central reason the facts however belie that in that the catalyst for the cartel coming at my client and persecuting them was his relationship with father in law he had been living a pretty comfortable life in mexico for years and then all of a sudden they come and persecute him not because of his well off life but because of his family relationship to his father in law so it was the catalyst of the persecution and also was his salvation for the persecution because every time the extorted him they said well if you just tell us where your father in law is we'll stop and so it does seem internally inconsistent the be a order i mean in one paragraph they say the respondents relationship to his father in law is the reason for the harm and exhaustion a experience and then the very nasty next paragraph they sanction image gratian judge finding that any motive to harm the respondent based on his family status was at most incidental it's it's very problematic here and i do think even of the deferential standard the record compels  solution that his family was at least one central reason and taking it there was no no evidence or indication that they were targeting the rich people who live next door on either side that's right your honor and that case the facts were flipped in that the family reported a kidnapping and then they claimed well they're being attacked because of their family group and the courts and the know you they didn't they knew you were a family before and they didn't persecute you they only persecuted you after you case law saying that the b i a continually interprets nexus too narrowly and kalam i write if we do get to the merits and we're gree with you on this point we would still remain and because the court would then be given the right law and they would have to decide other issues is that right i see my time is up if i may that's exactly right i think it would be a rematch with instructions consistent with the opinion providing a proper definition of nexus for the th circuit ok and i know my time is