i wish to be clear about that what we are asking in this case the i g has every right and in fact has to weigh evidence but the i g cannot do under this court's cases in other courts cases fail to consider casey and other courts holdings that we also also cite so what are the three findings that the i g made while ignoring the essential evidence that mr alaska's been a guest presented as to those in the first was that the  against him that he knew three people with hiv and hundred and that he and others didn't think they were getting the government actually agrees with us on at least partly on this one in the sense that there was no testimony in the record as to what other people how other people perceive these three individuals so the government agrees on that but equally critical of mr alaska's been a guest gave an explanation and again i j found him to be credible as to what would distinguish him from these three individuals that he is a middle aged  say he knew three people with hiv he didn't think they were gay he gave this explanation as to why i'm not persuaded for x y and z reason but which he can't do is just make that finding and then completely ignore or fail to mention in that analysis consequences and the expert testimony was thirty three mention expert was there any criticism of poor teoh's evidence i believe the government would say that the evidence is general but as  general that it wasn't about him had no talk to him so so there are two things she could have meant that is one thing she could have meant the other is when she said that the evidence was general in nature she faulted the country conditions evidence for not having something she wanted to she wanted to see examples from hundreds of individuals who had each maybe but who are not who are mistaken to be that's one example of it she thought of the evidence this is on page twelve of her opinion and says none of that shows that and we fully agree your honour's we fully agree that that evidence if it existed would be powerful evidence it would be powerful but as far as we know there is that evidence that kind of data does not exist in hunter so again the i a is welcome to look at the evidence that was presented and say you know for x y and z reason because mr of alaska's been i guess as these personal circumstances i don't find it persuasive but what the i g cannot under this court's holding  say well i'm not going to give any weight to these country conditions reports to the seven it's because i want to see x but x is an exaggerated notion of what's available in a country like indoors in a poor country like indoors where these studies don't exist th it doesn't exist so and especially since the conditions evidence was to provide a report which we cite in our brief one report is that they are five ninety to ninety one from a canadian human rights group that said people blame gays for each have an animistic that and that is towards  because it and that is some explanation corroborating this for ts testimony it is true that some people have a child of the who are not open sexual yes it's absolutely true and it should be stated very clearly for the record that hiv is not a gay disease but historically and i think globally it has been perceived rightly or wrongly to be that and that is what the x well it's most common i think among homosexuals so intervene as drug users rightly or wrongly globally and historically and in one door it's as the record shows that people have perceived hiv to be a gay disease and that was the testimony of was what was written in there so the idea that she didn't didn't reject or didn't disagree with the proposition but felt there had to be evidence about him specifically  i don't think that's what the i g meant when she rejected the general evidence that was said i think what she wanted was those examples of of individuals other individuals that had been mistaken to be gay because they had a charity and we think that's  no no no you may not be persuaded by by all that other evidence but you can't just ignore that evidence because you want to see something that just isn't reasonably obtainable in in that country so she would have liked what some had to be brought in who would testify course there was always situations you can imagine in which there would be stronger congregants the first no one would do that i mean no one would come in and make an offer testimony like that or they would or wouldn't you know if you can imagine a situation if mr glascock been i guess had felt brave enough at this point in time while he's still in the united states to confide in as a cousin and his cousin wrote a letter saying i don't think he's gay you know that would have been evidence contrary that you know to our position that she could have relied on and and maybe you know the cousin would have testified but i do think he's gay even though i've known him for so long i don't know exactly what the i j a i had in mind but it seems to us at least when it comes to the gender that the general nature of of the country conditions report just corroborating this general perception by showing that a gay man is ten times more likely to have each id by citing to that canadian human rights report that said there is an amiss toward gays because of h p v because people believe gay started that disease and under us again she can discount that if she does so fairly but she can't discount that because she wants to see something something like an example him going out and finding an example of someone who stake into became her perceived to be gay who isn't because he has a charity and that was not reasonably attainable and that's one of the three things in addition to the three people that she knew hanny that's that's one of the finally she made and she she just completely ignored that evidence because she wanted something that wasn't reasonably mentioned before corroborated his fear his fear that they would think that and the all the i g did with that she swept it all under the rug and said i just can't imagine his family that i just went on strike i just can't imagine that his family would really think that they've known him for so long but putting aside the fact that believing in your mid thirty's still unmarried without ha ve and coming back in your mid to late forty's still unmarried and now with hiv putting putting that as if if there was some like that letter from a cousin that does it in the hypothetical imagine if there was something for her to hang your hat on to say well that they knew he had a chevy and didn't think he was gay that would be fair game no doubt about that which he can't do is just supplant all the record evidence that there in the record and replace it with a mere guess a mere guess a conjecture as to what they must think because you know surely they think like me or like my parents didn't and i don't know what the idea was thinking when she made that determination so so  found out there are cases where a person was granted relief based on imputed membership in a social group to which they deny membership i mean i could but we could so there are cases that there are there are there are cases same that you can state a claim for imputed membership in a political group or a religious group or religious opinion or political opinions discern a moral reason that there should be a legal difference between people who have a protected social group imputed to them who have a lot of people who have a protected social group imputed to them versus a political opinion i think that immigration lies and this actually goes to another everything i do mean i think the immigration laws in this context the thrust of the law is this to say people have a right to be open about certain characteristics and that includes  political pain and religious opinion and the law at the requires a judge to ask what will happen to you if you are open about those things that the law requires you to be open about what you face persecution or not and if you do face persecution you said a claim and so the fourth finding the idea made was that his community or if he was unlikely to run into anybody he knows because he was going to seek treatment for hours away the only implication that can be drawn the only way that that finding would be relevant to the i g is analysis is if she drew a conclusion from that that therefore he somehow would be able to keep his hiv status concealed but his hiv status is itself also a protected status and as i just said i think the laws require that the i j a ask what happens if you are open about this thing you have a right to be open about it and i don't think that the i g today i see that the white light is on so i'll reserve discussion about what the i j a would have wanted to hear and what evidence she would have wanted to see presented however i don't think that is the right way to look at the evidence in this case rather it's more like the glass is half empty versus half full so reputed homosexuality because it was general in nature not specific to him but he did testified that people might think he is gay not only because he is be positive but because he's never married he's middle age what more specific evidence could he have reasonably provided so in order to answer that i'm going to go back to this bill's bit visualization of the evidence and so the idea is petitioner is responsible for bringing forth the evidence to meet this burden of proof and so in order to meet that level he has to present it it's not whether that immigration judge is looking does not get him any individualized evidence of risk of harm and i don't understand what you're saying because he he did he did explain look i have charity i've never married i'm middle age i i can't fathom what more this man could have done so i'm going to run a parallel to another case that's what recently decided which was on his anita and in that case it's also a particular social group and there was no past persecution however the petitioner was arguing that there was a fear in the future that when he returned to mexico he would be perceived as wealthy and there this court found that because because your deputy did not present any specific faction wing that he would be singled out for persecution that there was only generalized unrest in general kidnappings by the gangs in mexico this was not sufficient to persecution of his return to you know his country of origin and that ordinarily cannot be decided on the basis of detailed information it has it's always a matter of probabilities he's going back to some violent there in central america and there have been maybe members of his family member and so let's not require your honor to contrary i would argue that it is required by the statute that there is some showing that he that he presents evidence that it is more than what not that he presents evidence generalities often rather than on the specifics of the person if he's a member of a group that's despised and can be threatened and murdered and so on that's evidence however they are if you don't know what particular threats have been made against him so however this court has found that that is not sufficient to meet the what is known as from everything that you've discussed which is what tradition has presented this case is insufficient to meet its burden of proof as required by the statute which we go back to this other case of luzon as in you go which this court decided that in that proposed particular social group of men returning from the united states a lot more evidence is required in this c tell us what evidence is required to make his case for i am not responsible for and i don't appreciate not responsible if you want to know the whole what the if you want to be able to tell us know you're going in circles what is that evidence that would say more likely that would that would show more likely than not apart from for teoh's evidence  totally empty you're saying nothing to the contrary your honor i would suggest that the evidence in the record does not meet his burden of proof because it actually goes in the medical illness into one of the protected grounds for refugee status now he has chosen it to be part of a particular social group now even then he must satisfy all the requirements that are pertinent to that so he must show that this is agreeable which we have we have recognized however that he must show member or ship which your honor question if he wants to use this as a group why would he then deny membership into it this makes it difficult to make that his basis for withholding here now on the other you claim of a particular social group for hiv positive individuals he can't show that there is a nexus to any harm that honduras while the country reports how are they regarded in honduras they are not as good as in the united states however that cannot speak to that because that is low you ought to know right he's concerned about being sent back to honduras now isn't it relevant what the crime rate isn't and worse should not be part of your preparation that you can tell us something about whether hunder is a safe place where maybe you're going to be teased about being a homosexual but you're not going to be killed your honor what the agency needed to analyze was whether petitioner actually satisfy the requirements for withholding of removal but it isn't the crime rate in the country that which someone ordered deported is not real it's relevant but it's meaningless if you can't satisfy all the other but you know what it is of course you seem to think that only any evidence that it's not specific to him is simply irrel arse the law does not permit a judge to require that a petition your hind a protected status this is true your honor in this is not but the judge decided petitioner himself stated that he wanted to keep it a secret and he did not want to reveal it his family into the moment of the merits hearing he had not yet and so understanding that that with parameter that he was presenting his particular social group the i had to use it and so using that in conjunction with the other evidence it made it less likely that there would be any imputation of homosexuality based off of the facts the petitioner himself presented in that he wanted to keep it a secret that his ha status in that the people that he knew with hiv he did not consider them as homosexuals additional evidence that he did not plan to spend any time in the l g b t q areas these were the pieces of evidence that he presented to the immigration judge and she discussed how these pieces did not show that there was a likelihood of imputation didn't she applied to exacting the standard of persecution on the basis of the charge be requiring compelling evidence of persecution here your honor just the fact of having a terrible illness which we recognise is not a basis itself reach enough evidence to show that is more likely than not that he would be persecuted on account of this particular particulars social group and there has been no case that shows that so long as a petition to show that he's a member of a group that is ill or has some life threatening illness that is sufficient to qualify for relief from removal of that c again would you only mention one piece of the saying the other pieces are for this claim that itself cannot compel a contrary conclusion there is no other record evidence that shows that that those factors of being middle aged and married with then automatically puts you into this category just a few minor points your honor i would start by stating that hiv is not any other illnesses i'm sorry but i would just start by stating that hiv is not just any other illness and there is no doubt that i'm doris has a tough time with their medical system and that people of all sorts of conditions have trouble getting care for hiv part of each of the population has historically had their condition associated with something else and that something else is generated kind of animals police themselves so i don't know what persecution for them would be if that's not it but i also want to clarify that mr of alaska has been a guest did not say he would hide his status he said he was afraid he said he was afraid to tell his family and and but if he were there he testified it's a are one seven five that he didn't see a choice but to come out about his hiv status because he has to take a bus four hours away and leave his family for a whole day and so i don't think that's right and on that the point about relief the government's account so stated that the evidence doesn't compel something we are not stating here today that the evidence has to compel a particular conclusion what we are saying is that the i j a has to give mr of alaska's been i guess a fair shake when she does her job of assessing the evidence and to do that she can't just not mention the central facts that he thought report to his case and the evidence the general evidence he