good morning writers frank sproles appearing before the petitioner this case really has one single issue which is that the immigration judge in an interim decision in the b s a found him to be a persecutor of others this is a particularly carthag inian finding because it rendered him ineligible not just for asylum but for in a car or for which he was arguably eligible and cancellation removed for nonpayment residence for which he was most assuredly eligible there's really one or two in undisputed facts which is he never personally was present during these interrogations he never personally harmed anyone he was acting as a police officer this stands in stark contrast to the central case specifically said this is on the margin of cope ability and he was tried and if he had arrested the people and sent them off to be interrogated an executed that would be more culpable not less culpable right except i mean in that case his goal ability was also he was translating ninety three this person was a century in the prison and his duties were simply ministerial you know moving the prisoner one place to another and was not directly involved in this whole argument is completely different to what you made your previous right because that we should disregard entirely the notes from the asylum officer and therefore there was no evidence that he would like to go to that because in the inside that basically is the entire universe of evidence as to whether or not he's a persecutor seven tiny pages for four fifty forty or sixty one and it's extremely ambiguous i mean the questioner is always asking about opponents of the government he would say yes people who killed people now we have to understand that this was a brutal civil war right these opponents of the government were not peacefully demonstrating and singing we shall overcome they were committing acts of terror and murder so to some extent it's not clear that in so i mean the only evidence we have is the somewhat ambiguous and ten you waited notice of the asylum officer in which the petitioner is saying i arrested people some people were opponents of the government who killed people he specifically says that and then he said it's rather unclear that sometimes they were the guilty you know everyone went to trial except the ones who killed four or five people now we're not sure what that really means but is that really he's saying they killed four or five marxist insurgents who killed four or five people and that's the on account of nexus that i think is missing so it's a very slender reed to make this really ultimate finding i mean basically that's a we're talking maybe some other those and that's why i basically argued since it's not clear you have basically the presumes i enter of the vote more of each case where they did it so he must have been had the purposeful involvement and the purpose or assistance i don't think it's present in this case and i can basically that's my argument  he was found not credible there's no question about it i mean i can't insult anybody's intelligence to say that he was less than credible so all we really have is we have to take it's true the asylum officers knows which i submit are not sufficient well for example that he worked with intelligence  and with this pm two or whatever which was intelligence unit he said that specifically right that i was a motorcycle cop and also worked with intelligence you see the problem is in the burns on him once there's at least this much evidence right and if he puts nothing on except another very credible and nothing credible on then why you know people who were people who go to jail people who go to trial and then there's just murky business about the extrajudicial killings which is again i don't think it's sufficient because of the nexus he's not saying this you know murky allegation but it really wasn't enough that was also on the enumerated grounds or any suggestion that people were just being picked up randomly not randomly but in the limited colloquy we have here he's saying i picked up people committed crimes who murdered people they may have been opponents of the government again this was not you know you can be an opponent of the government and also commit crimes right which is why he never said i pick people up because i didn't like their speech right he you know into the limited colloquy we have here he picked up people who murdered who committed actual crimes which is you know very different from the other cases where it's clearly done on account of being a member of shining path being a member the f m l and here he was committing people who committed regular ordinary crimes who may or may not have been members of the marxist insurgency so i don't think that the nexus there good morning this is dan and kamal a for the attorney general in this case the record contains substantial evidence that wrote us right as was subject to the persecutor bar under oath before the asylum officer he admitted that he arrested people based on their political opinion well do you say that he said he arrested people who are against the government where he said they arrested people because they were going to go if  you're i believe the asylum officer at several points you know tried to clarify with him i'm still referring to political when you arrested somebody what happened to them to make sure that he understood it was the specific on for fifty six he says i am so referring because rose red says it depends on the crimes they committed and this i'm officer says i am still referring to political ok when you arrested someone what happened to them and then he goes on to explain the investigations and that they were taken to a specialized unit where they were untouched arrogated but he says that why was it secret if some people   does he ever in any worse say that he arrested people who didn't kill people i don't know if he explicitly says that the part of the evidence that everybody looked at was not just the asylum officer notes but is objective country conditions evidence report from c i s which basically corroborated that the groups that he worked with and admitted to working with were targeting political dissidents and people who are against the you that is going to order to arrest somebody he doesn't know where the he doesn't know that the arrest is improperly mode isn't that a problem here  not exactly under miranda alvarado it requires personal involvement and purposeful assistance to the persecutors motives and here without taking these political dissidents into custody and bringing them to where they are persecuted they're free they're there roaming around guatemala and they're not in a position where this intelligence unit can exert control over them persecute them torture them and possibly kill them but that the promise of that is that he's arresting more you just described as political dissidents if for his respect t v is simply arresting people who have killed others without a political component does that satisfy the  test it's sort of unclear what he actually thinks i mean right off the top in the asylum officer interview he asks him have you ever pee persecuted others and he says yes because of the type of work i did so there's some sort of awareness out but he's well i knows that some of these people want up summarily executed at the end of those i mean he does he just maintained throughout that these were people who killed other people he never says that he arrested people who were for simply  political crimes on four fifty four where you asked to arrest others who were against the government yes yes but that's different i mean if you were he was a writer of arrested people and they were against the government that doesn't mean that the rest of them because they are against the government it does say because he went on and said that when someone tried to obtain information from the government what type of persons persons who have killed four or five people who are trying to erase info so they information so they want to be brought to justice that's its ultimate explanation of these people who are against the government but then after ass did you arrest people who were not supporters of the government ye to arrest and racial they were being brought to justice were not supporters of the government but those that make him culpable for arresting people for on political opinion knowingly so i think that the government  the permafrost the burden and then it shifts arose raz and we have nothing but his incredible later testimony to rebut that and so in the end he doesn't have to have enough evidence from which one are two different readings of this asylum interview given our conversation right now to me and our position he is admitting to arresting some people who have committed crimes but also targeting people who are against the government who have not necessarily committed crimes and then we have the background country conditions i wouldn't say it says that p n two and the six motorized corps were working together to make those types of arrests and that there was a secret intelligence apparatus in a hospital where people were brought and persecuted seemed to be throwing a wide net of taint on people who participated in what i would assume is a repu the rest of somebody a little bit the driver of the vehicle etc without an indication that the person doing it had any call it improper the case law in this area doesn't require a guilty conscience necessarily ok anything else if there are no other questions thank you very much thank you greenly briefly i think there clearly is a guilty scienter component because the persecution has to be on account of so again i think it's casting too wide a net in the sense that you know we were in the area of civil in all the other case law miranda cases from the other circuit the the people that were picked up were picked up soley for political reasons here clearly these are criminals who may or may not have been political dissidents and so i think there but i start flipping through the opening brief i don't see it and i'm not sure it was ever made to the b i a or for that matter maybe not to the i j in those terms so that might help explain why the agencies decisions don't focus on the numerator grounds i outset as i read your brief that had nothing to do with it the substance of this of all it was basically an argument that we should just completely disregard all right assumption that we should completely just like excuse me completely disregard