my name's nicholas marquis i represent the petitioner mr sun the court is where this is a petition from review from the board of immigration appeals of firming the denial of his request for relief specifically mr sandra in reaching the decision in the board affirming the decision of the i j a the board found and the i j a found that mr sondra a could not establish that he was a member of  killer social group b that he could not show a nexus or that he was protected under the act by the acts that were constituted the immigration judge in ruling his decision found that  authorities is a police officer doing his duties and the retaliation was from the criminal organization however the record is number one i would point out that mr sander was found credible the judge  sympathetic to his case given the finding of credibility and there were a whole series of incidents of things that happened to him but then taking all of that and fitting it into the immigration statutes is somewhat of a tall order for you so if we take that in so let's take first the police officer situation in iowa versus holder we had said that if a former police officer singled out for reprisal not because of his status as a former police officer but because of his role in disrupting particular criminal activity he's not without more essentially targeted because of a social group how does your client get around that we get around that your honor by this in addition to doing his job as noted in the is investigation of the two individuals the party of the said investigation were the singer mr respondent that he indicated that he had observed his supervising officer talking with these individuals at the police station in the hallways so you take it further there than i am now because now you have situation where he sees the corruption is ongoing now if he would only have testified to the fact that oh there was corruption in the police officer the police and these individuals working together be a corruption and had nothing more i would agree that he would have a stretch to get beyond iowa but he doesn't have any whistle blowing desi i believe that he does now how is by raising the issue to his supervisors now the court may say well just raising the issue of this problem that you have corruption in government is insufficient i believe that with the evidence he submitted the corruption  documentation that was submitted to the pre hearing statement i think it starts with page two seventy one and anti corruption force partment of state report further down i think it's three seventy four i thought the record was pretty clear and he didn't assert to his boss anything about being dropped he only told his coworkers his coworkers told him to keep quiet and less he had any proof and they didn't ever do anything and he didn't ever do anything well i would consult then i said to myself i don't know where the proof is again the proof would come from the submitted documentation from the department of state and the corruption reports that were provided on the human rights short that but that doesn't mean there could be a ton of corruption but what the b i a e a said is we're not persuaded that is discussions with coworkers is an expression of any corruption believe sufficient to support a whistleblower claim so take it that there corruption from the state department reports but what kind of missing the connection between him and reporting and it would be our position that his reporting while it may be tenuous into his friends and that what he saw at the police station would support it mindful that there is testimony that he did not report the issues specific however he did and was investigated by these other officers from the different unit or different city i believe it was that came out in question and he did testify i think if we look at the full range of the facts i think that would be sufficient if this were the case where this individual did nothing said well i went and i did this investigation is an undercover officer and then i was beaten i would say that that would be sufficient for denial but however here he did establish or he did present evidence of some corruption from his point of view and i think that that will occur so that kind of gets us into the standard of review because it does support the corruption allegation but then does it compel it and that's that's where we have this quite high hurdle and these immigration cases freshly in withholding and and then after that cat yes and i can it well i agree the burden is high on the respondent at that level to present the evidence the question then comes to if we was what can it be granted we have the real idea but what can i respond at present to support his claims and what i submit to the court is it is a high burden but that burden has also moved to the fact that he was found credible and his witnesses were found credible so that would go to meeting that higher burden if the judge acquit what they think what was missing is that in all his credibility he didn't have the facts about whistleblowing so i mean you can believe everything he says but the way i read that that is it doesn't tip you over the edge and my position again is that it would yes it you've got to do it to be credible and the meet your even though there's nothing that really says but you gotta say since you aren't credible i'm to give you an inference and that makes the burden no what i'm saying is you've got to be credible but your record also has to have additional evidence put into the record and in this case we have submissions from department of state we have human rights reports of it those are general my good colleague really put her finger on those doesn't seem to me that those really add much they don't they don't attack this specific and at all but they do raising inference of the problem there combined with the fact that he submitted articles that supported the people that he was talking about and what has occurred to them this isn't a generalized argument that it doesn't have anything else i understand your thank you thank you before yesterday do you want to address the u n treaty right or do you not i will address it in the sense that i believe that that is an issue that the immigration judge did not raise the board of immigration appeals that you don't have it because it doesn't do an independent right to relief and or stand the case law on that but then my question is to what extent then is it important at all for the immigration judge does it not mean that if we have these ratification of these treaties and we're talking to an immigration judge and they say well it doesn't mean anything because it's not law to what extent does new immigration judge it or does he even have to rely on it even though it is a treaty and even though the immigration judges and those of us who believe in immigration law deal with these treaties on a daily basis i would suggest that the court remanded to the immigration judge for an analysis under that is to what extent does the u n treaty play on this case the government will say well it's not law it's not enacted it's not self executing therefore it doesn't apply well then why do we have it why do we even protect to go out and ground and does not demonstrate acquiescence by the mongolian government or a public official finally the u n treaty against transnational organized crime simply does not create a relief or protection and petitioner simply has not political opinion and former police officer the problem is a lack of evidence petitioner is asking you to say well the record you would have to say the record compels inference to inference to inf but the record doesn't there's corruption ok where is there any evidence that the criminals knew about any suppose it anti corruption belief or the imputed to him there's not on page one thirty conclusion he saw his captain talking to some criminals and police station that's it if that were sufficient to compel the conclusion that first of all the police officers corrupt and then the criminals were motivated by this corruption i suggest all every a usa police officer at the agent in any law enforcement officer now has a compelling record of being corrupt it just doesn't compel t conclusion of the string that he wants this court to make for the whistleblower claim first the government maintains that it is abandon because opening brief does not discuss it raising for the first time in the world argument really just does not provide this court or responded with really adequate discussion suffice it to say though he didn't blow the whistle that's a fundamental part of being a whistleblower he did not contrary what petitioner to simply just told th i'm pages one twenty one twenty one one twenty three one twenty four the record repeatedly he's asked did you report any of this about this corruption to the police no i didn't have any proof i understand that these individuals talking to someone at the police station but we don't know what they said no idea and then later they actually are arrested correct where exactly are so they're the what he said he saw i saw the singer look  and talking to the captain that person is alternately charged and convicted of a crime so the problem is there's a record compel the conclusion again of this string adventure and says for withholding current police officer there's simply no evidence to compel the conclusion that they were actually motivated by him uniform a police officer like this is a police officer who was caught in their organization they did not like that it's sympathetic  i don't think i've ever argued a case that's not sympathetic your honor these cases involve a lot of ugly facts but we have to look at the legal standards that congress provide and finally turn to cap protection again the acquiescence argument relies on a string of inference is that just aren't supported by the record yes there's corruption among government police are not always effective but garcia millions the police do not have to be effective  and does it again this returns back to the singer was convicted of a crime the neuron batar the son of the member of parliament it's unclear he newspaper article he submitted says he didn't get away with it but apparently was not actually convicted but if we require for somehow that the state nation states are simply convict someone throw away the key in or say well then now they're not acquiesce and that's that's a standard no country including the merit well what we need is argument about whether the treaty is self executing or not and we just don't have any what's your reason was executed well first of all and many versus texas the supreme court requires either about witness protection to the extent he would actually be considered a witness against a transnational organized crime the article twenty four says this state shall take appropriate measures  dealers and while that may involve transnational organized transnational organized crime not just simply no evidence of it but some we look at article twenty four it says state nation nation states shall take appropriate measures and then just give suggestions in may do witness protection relocation all these things that may do a variety of things but may doesn't mean that you look at this treaty and says i can apply for relief or protection from removal under this treaty basically boils down to i didn't win so therefore i must be entitled to something but then they not every day i mean is going to win a relief from protection of removal so looking at the decisions and