torture regarding his withholding of removal application while the be presumed that mr albert is was a member of his proposed particular social groups including male family members of his grandfather which is the one that we are focusing on in our arguments it found insufficient nexus between his feared persecution and his particular social groups now correct me if i'm wrong but neither in connection with the killing of his grandfather which occurred like fifteen years before or the killing of his i guess they were cousins yes you know nobody knows why he didn't know why his grandfather was killed he didn't know who killed his grandfather he doesn't know why he's cousins were killed but he said anything when those anonymous notes were left at the door nobody said we're going to kill you because you're the grandson of so and so it did fish don't know so as sad as these events are doesn't your client bear the burden to show why they were killed and to tie them into this social group i don't see the connection or your honor in terms of why his grandfather was killed why the cousins were killed i don't think that we really need to establish that because in this case the threat the death threats specifically mention the grandfather specifically said that they knew that he was the grandson of this individual and specifically said that they would kill him like they killed the grandfather but there was a why well you have the burden to show if you're going to be part of a social group you have to show in what way you are and there's nothing to tie whatever reason was given for the killing of the grandfather or the cousins or the threat to your client you have that burden do you not yes your honor and i think we're relying on circumstantial evidence because most cases they're not going to specifically state why they are  your perception that that circumstance that the individual that asylum application or in this case with holding up the can can rely on circumstantial evidence and that they don't necessarily need to provide direct evidence of what the persecutors that the prosecutor specifically said this is why we want to kill you in this case there was no other reason for these individuals to threaten my client killing of the grandfather occurred when one thousand nine hundred three and now he was there from two thousand and one to two thousand and five correct same town and apparently nothing happened to him why do you suspect that something may happen to him this time when he was if for you or five release well your honor that's something that the agency has not determined there has been no ruling on whether he could reasonably relocate so i don't think that this court is can make that decision in the first instance counsel of the law doesn't it say that you know as long as he go anywhere in mexico it doesn't he doesn't have it's not required that he go back to the town do you have a case that supports your position that has to go back to his town and be not sure the law supports you on that no you are we're not arguing that he has to go back to his town i mean the law define does not say that what i was referring to with judge roberto is that they just he hasn't made a determination of what you're referring to in this case the reason relocation issue they didn't determine whether he could reasonably relocate to another part of mexico outside of the town where he was threatened and so i think that's something that the agency should be left to decide in the first instance they they basically determined in this case their reasonings for why he he there wasn't a clear probability was because their grandmother continued to be safe before her death in two thousand and ten however the grandmother was not is not a member of a particular social group that he has raised in this case which is male relatives of the grandfather so they continue safety of the grandmother while she was alive doesn't necessarily undermine his claim council looks change your future persecution correct and you base that on the family connection and per your disk i guess so if i could just a little bit further the evidence here nothing else was provided to thing else was stated there is no other reason given for why these individuals wanted to harm my client as he testified himself he had himself no enemies in mexico he had done nothing to make any enemies in mexico he didn't upset anyone no one asked him you know in these cases typically someone asks the person to work for them and they refuse to work for them for a drug cartel or they ask for money for ransom this is not what happened in this case all these individual specifically said hey we know who your grandfather is we know that you board found that there wasn't any reason i think because the house will matter had been decided but i'm just saying if you take that and you take the allegations contained in the record i find nothing in there that indicates a reason for your clients being harmed based on a family relationship yes the tragedy of his grandfather's death yes he had the tragedy of his cousin's death but we don't know why he doesn't say you say that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to prove it but circumstantial evidence proved what well as i was saying that they didn't mention anything else but his relationship to his grandfather so there must be at least there is at least some evidence indicating that they only targeted  i think that's that's the that's the most that's the strongest evidence that we have where the individuals have stated their reason for for killing him i mean i do want to also point out as you because another area that i want to  class of persons that can be identifiable by perception what's your response to that what's your best case to counter that but in this case the board assumed that he it was a cognizable social group  cases that we would rely on if this were remanded and the issue were brought up again i do also want to point out there in terms of the next issue that again while we don't know exactly why these relatives were killed i just want to point out that  we have seven family members killed within a thirteen year period of time that's an average less than two years between the killing certainly it's terrible and tragic but they weren't all killed in this one small town and when i first picked up the briefing i thought they were all killed within that small town they were killed throughout the truck on the ethics so they were relatives within a pretty wide range region of mexico or central mexico and the so it's not really clear how that connection it kind of i think undermines your case because it's not really clear how the people knew that those individuals were the grand sons of sheriff the sheriff in this town so i don't sure the how how that strengthens your your nexus argument why don't i just point to the where that individual also had several relatives either killed or run out of the country and yet there wasn't any evidence exactly at the at the time of those incidents why those people were being persecuted as well but the court went on to rule because because of all those family members being attacked in in addition to that country conditions evidence so those individuals in that situation to being attacked they said that there was enough nexus in that case so i would just good morning counsel good morning your honor is may it please the court my name is jennifer singer and i represent the united states attorney general the respondent in this matter as this case involves the reinstatement of one of petitioners prior orders of removal and because he's waived the board's past persecution finding the only issues before this court are whether the petitioner met his burden for withholding of removal and kept protection and i will address each of those issues in terms first with regard to withholding of removal the petitioner has narrowed his particular social group claim throughout these proceedings to the one he's advancing now which is a male family members of his grandfather but to prove this the petitioner has to show some evidence that he was targeted because of that family relationship and th evidence here is insufficient the mere fact that there is that particular social group of family and that members of a family have been harmed is insufficient to show an excess fluid your position suggest circumstantial evidence per se can fill in the blanks there with your response to circumstantial evidence and some cases can fill in the blanks but here all we have it's the threat and it's anonymous it was unaddressed and all that really establishes is that the would be persecutor we don't know who wrote it the would be persecutor only knows of the family relationship and makes a threat of harm it still doesn't establish a fact there's more than one throw it doesn't matter it might of if some of the other note said maybe something different but based on the testimony it seems that all the notes just simply mention the grandfather and mention that a threat of harm it doesn't give any other indication as to motive as to why we then again we don't know who and even in terms of that piece of evidence connecting everything else together there's everything's just too tenuous the timing of events the locality  events just this piece of evidence in and in and of itself is insufficient and even taken together it's just not enough to meet the burden of showing a nexus to his family status his story about the note the i j did find some issues with consistency is in his testimony but i took that for the weight of the evidence but did credit petitioners to did credit his testimony as credible and the board took it as credible but even taking that testimony as credible it still is speculation his subjective beliefs as to why or who is doesn't show actual motive there needs to be something in addition and all he's pointing to is this threat and this threat is insufficient to show motive and it is it is his burden to show motive and we really just there is no motive here we don't know anything we don't know who killed the grandfather who killed the cousins who wrote the at one point he says narco traffickers at another point he says maybe it was a grandson of somebody else it's just that does not show especially given the timing of events where the grandfather was killed in  and even point out too that some of the cousins were killed prior to the time the grandfather was killed and that was the span over about fifteen years the last death being in one thousand nine hundred nine in the threats to petitioner when we're in two thousand and seven th believe it was two or three of prior to the grandfather or three other ok so petitioner in his brief painted as the systematic extermination of family members and that's just really not looking at the facts that's really not what happened  otherwise nothing off the top of my head but perhaps if all these were in the same town it would lend more credence to his speculation but because all these events took place in different areas as you mentioned  go some family members were killed in mexico city that locality just undermines his claim that these individuals were actually targeted because of their family status i think he makes reference to the country they do show that there is lawlessness i mean that also shows stepping aside from the cat issue real quickly to the motive if you a country conditions evidence just substantiates the fact that there is no motive here and given the length of time over which these family members were killed it just shows that there is a lot of violence in mexico unfortunately and a lot of the crime goes unpunished unfortunately and those country conditions reports substantiate the fact that there's no nexus that these people were killed because unfortunately mexico is a violent country so she has to connect the violence to narco trafficking to be targeted by the c thomas or some similar group you cannot be just a victim of random violence correct you have to show that for what you have something that you will be singled out for persecution and here he is claiming family membership and the country conditions doesn't show that members of his family are targeted for persecution while they do you think you can be either by an official group or he can be by a private group such as  one of the gangs that's correct but here we don't know who the would be persecutor is the speculation is maybe it's not the traffickers though in reality we don't know who it is so we don't know if it's a government likely though that  in terms of showing motive or in terms of showing the jury identity i don't think so i mean it could be a neighbor it could be it could be we don't know who it is and i'd rather not speculate because it's the petitioner's burden to show potentially who it is and why it was written and if we didn't have an identity we would be able to perhaps discern more maybe why this person wrote the note but we just simply have no evidence of who it was or why it was written in terms of the country conditions i wouldn't issue and can't claim but to share point to the fact that he went to the authorities with the note but the authorities simple fact of their inability to bring these anonymous no writers to justice is insufficient to show that they wouldn't protect him from torture in the future that would be true in any country would it not if you wrote an anonymous note we're going to go we will look for correct and then if it were otherwise then anyone with an anonymous letter or something effect where they don't know who the perpetrator is could have a potential claim and that just doesn't reach that far with your position on  i would say had no motive case so remained for an analysis of i think would be futile as the outcome wouldn't change under either standard if there's no further questions i might just sum up faces a clear probability of persecution because he is the grandson of his grandfather or that he faces a clear probability of torture upon return to mexico thank you your honors you counsel of the give some rebuttal thank you i do would like to point out a couple of cases in terms of the motive issue in this case in the court's decision  situation was there was again no reason this was an individual who was targeted by a drug cartel in mexico and there was no reason given for the attacks but there was an explanation provided and circumstantial evidence had supported the individuals explanation the plan when he was that we don't know who is targeting the individual but in that case they weren't they didn't know for sure as well and so it was remanded for them to well we don't necessarily need to identify the specific individuals who threatened them all we need to deter we need to demonstrate is that there is someone who does want to harm him and we watched that opportunity already yes and we're not arguing that we're not arguing that we need to have another opportunity we're arguing that the evidence shows that at the very least we what we do know is that the people who killed the grandfather threatened my client they specifically said that no we do know that your hon right we do not know who killed the grandfather but i again we do not need to establish that in order to demonstrate you do if you want to show a family group you need it if your claim is that the social group of volved is the family and that the reason your client is targeted is because of the family you do need to show that it's the reason the reason that these people were being killed is because they were members of the family and you have not shown that well we need to show why he was targeted mean you you say that because he says grandfather sign that he's being targeted but the reality is if you're going to show it is because of the family you have to show that these people were killed because they were members of the family and you've not made that showing so in any event we don't see the cases when mother go all had to do with willful blindness to a third party known third parties activities so it's very different than what your portrayal here i  support the conclusion that he was and just the victim of random violence is not a random act of targeting of him especially specifically mentioning his grandfather and that ways that the that the family members were killed execution were individuals who were targeted for specifically being killed these weren't acts of random violence there weren't any robberies involved in any of these killings they were again they weren't motivated by money so the agencies conclusion that all we had was evidence of random violence simply cannot be supported by substantial evidence that lived there for four years without any violent act upon prior the prior time yes this is this recent time he was only there for a month in his grandmother's home where she relocated and that's when he was threatened then he left about a month later thank you arsenio thank you very much thank you both counsel for your argument in this case the case just argued is submitted