so i'm just saying all dangers own potential danger to all the dangers that have not occurred in there is no longer a danger it's a fact you are potential a town in idaho and killed twenty five thousand people that would not have been an act that threatened the security of the united states in your view is that correct opinion to the national ticket so if this man had threatened to blow up it federal courthouse in your view that is or has not a national security issue then i would say though we have to address the st one the board was well within its rights to interpret this the statutory phrase is used in an immigration statute with which it has authority over on both  and or rather i would say that standard of proof required saying that the poor obviously use that many pose a threat rather than is a threat but in this case the court does not have to decide that issue because as i pointed out in my briefs both in my preferred immigration judge and the poor use the proper standard and found that he presents a danger although my opponent has already here that the immigration judge applied the own standard is a very obvious from the language of the immigration judge and the board's use you could look at the immigration judge's decision on the administrative records page fifty eight or fifty nine and then the board's decision on the administrative record page three that they see that that the respondent presented a danger to the security of the united states i would also argue that there's more than sufficient evidence in this case to show that he presented its anger on his own rather troy was the person who called the tip line in this case when he called his mother and said that he was going to kill thirty to fifty nonbelievers and that they should watch the news and to see that there would be something big happening in amarillo texas he was taken into custody and placed under a psychiatric watch and although my opponent argues that it's the ramblings of somebody who is mentally incompetent i would argue that that makes him almost more dangerous because he's not subject to reason he's hearing voices he's having suggestions that he should that brother in law and sister who later came in and were present at his questioning arms that he poses a danger he is subject to influence that if you were to get a weapon he could possibly he would use it they also outlined an incident that he had with the western union where he went back in anger or threatened people threatened to kill the agent there who refused to give him money dues more than enough evidence in this record to show that he is a danger to the security of united states my opponent also argues that you know or use a belt the definition of the security of the united states it's not just national security in the definition in this case a matter of the or it said so that security of the united states encompasses its foreign relations national defense and the economic interests  united states i would argue i mean the immigration judge and i believe found and i believe my opponent could see it's that he was clearly a danger to public safety at least and i would argue that being a danger to public somehow revenge himself on nonbelievers that that would spur me effect and the immigration judge not formulations with a country with which we have diplomatic relations at the moment it's also killing thirty to fifty people and as a foreign national again would certainly affect the economic interests of the united states on the immigration judge found that and i think the court has recognized that i well i think that you it's not just a question of thirty people this isn't a question of an american citizen engaging in a crime spree this is a question of of a foreign national and in this case a muslim we have seen in the past really affect the security of the united states you have any case that would support such tangential or such remote affect on security as would qualify as a security interest well the security of united states encompasses is the poor defined it to include for relations and certainly foreign relations with a number  if this individual killed several people in the name of his religion and he were tried that would create could possibly create  tried he does it in a stride and it becomes publicized then national security interests of foreign interests may be affected is that your argument yes that is my argument and certainly now the you would have to take it far beyond where it is now a mere threat to care for the people does it seem to me is possible to say that it affects international relations of the security interests of the united states if we actually did it and that takes it not yet any act that has not yet been completed is certainly in the threat stage so you can't wait for him to kill thirty to fifty people in order to then consider him to be a danger to the security of the united states i mean threat alone and i would add that it wasn't i mean this isn't just some you know something that no one thought oh my point or use that you know no one really took this seriously his brother and his brother in law and sister really yes and in fact it wasn't just his threat to kill thirty to fifty people his threat was to kill nonbelievers and he said that he would be rewarded by allah you know clearly he was tagging those to his muslim faith it wasn't just a question of somebody in gauging in a criminal act this was religiously motivated clearly by him you know in the statement that he made and he admitted to making that statement and also i think you have to look at the fact that he's had a longstanding you know a thirty year association with an organization that this country has designated as a foreign terrorist organization and combine it with those two things certainly if he were to carry this out that would certainly negatively affect our relations with the countries that i'm in in pakistan the end to end is a major political party in that in that country but it seems that your argument our carriers you into the area oppose in only  this stage as speculative i don't you to security at this stage well it's i would argue that it's the weight it's the weight of the evidence you know you can somebody can be walking down the street and say you know  you know i think maybe i will kill thirty to fifty people in this case this was a very it's you know it was a very targeted threat it was made to his family members who were also supporters of them it was you're saying that a proper interpretation of this language includes speculative dangers as well as dangers that are more likely to occur than than one of many i think the use of the word  and be granted asylum when they have been threatened with death who are threatened with bodily harm in another country and we accept that as evidence of persecution even though it has not been carried out when people get threatening letters you know arguing that they will be killed because of their religious beliefs or because of their ethnicity we allow them to prove a case that for asylum we don't wait until they are killed we don't wait until they are necessarily harmed image you believe that a solomon can be withheld or withdrawn from someone who engages in the most remote sort of speculative threat to the security of the united states even though he has no ability to doubt no i am not arguing that i am an argument that are you that in this case it was not speculative his his brother or his family members a minute sad from this case though what are you arguing satisfies the stature of a of a danger that that the evidence taken as a whole i would not argue outside the confines of this case because the court i mean as a court knows it doesn't have authority to to to consider a question that is not specifically before it but in this case i mean the board has said that he has to pose or present a danger to the security of the united states and then you look at the evidence that is presented in the particular case and determine whether that presents is substantial evidence to meet that standard in this case i am arguing that lets them be evidence here is before standard this standard of whether he poses a danger to the security of the united states that is the statutory standard that the court that the that the court is looking at that's the this case the evidence more than supports that this is more than it wrong trivial danger you have somebody who is mentally impaired who is open to suggestion who has been  and his family has said would be open to suggestion to somebody who would use him to carry out a plot that if he got a weapon he would definitely be a danger and that's the evidence before before this court and knew that that is substantial evidence to say that he poses at least a non trivial danger to the security of the united states so i would say no and it's not a speculative danger i don't believe that that would carry out that threat if i say i'm going to go on to kill somebody but i don't have the means or the possibility of doing it then that is a speculative threat isn't that is that there are you ok that's not their argument that they are making here though yes mentally ill that they do not pose a threat i would say his mental illness and as is his family members tested said his his mental illness made him open to persuasion and suggestion by other forces forces that that pose a real threat to the united states and the board found that his association with the m q m which the united states considers to be a terrorist organization and there could possibly be that persuasive factor and if he if somebody gave him a weapon that he would pose of actual nature that's what his family member said so i would say that in this case the evidence moves far beyond speculation  men but that's what the court found in this case is rather the board found in this case that he presents at danger the poor did argues that may pose is not a proper standard i would say i states and i have morning during that all of those things you know his mental illness adds to that his threats his family coming in and explaining that he's open to persuasion that he has this connection to a terrorist organization that has given a weapon and his prior threat to to harm a western union employee those are all evidence that this is not speculative but that he actually poses a danger he you know the evidence in the record shows that he refuses treatment he's living on the story that he and with his own just just state again and you've been asked this before but just so it's clear  to be a phony express the state is there the disposition was not based on his membership and him cume him but because he was found to pose a danger to the security of the united states so taking you back to question a judge jolly ask the way at the beginning and we hear your answer is that the family damed to madrid so you know they call it to point well they could be a threat to public safety so just articulate for us we understand what the bounds of our disposition is not making some nasa pronouncement but the language is dead he posed a danger to the security of the united states so answer the question does job of what is the articulation of the danger to the security of the united states as opposed to obviously a danger to his locale and so for will the board felt that he presented its injury because of his threat to kill most thirty to fifty non muslims as coupled with the evidence of his association with a terrorist organization that that's what the poor found it's not just his i mean i'm arguing that his family coming in and tipping off shows that they considered him to be a danger to the poor no no i'm not as hopeful i'm not asking i'm not asking you that i'm danger to the security of the united states close quote in the b s a ruling is say as however as discussed above the respondents asylum status has not been terminated based on his membership m rather because he was found to have posed a danger to the security of the united states close quote and all i'm asking you is to really articulate what constitutes the danger to the security  considering the fact that he is a danger to the security of the united states which is defined as national defense foreign relations and economic interests that it didn't preclude it from considering  that he may be spread its truth on muslims and he has this want term association with a group that's considered a terrorist organization in the united states so the board could could consider his association in terms of his counsel but i'm going to assume you're unable to answer my i suppose refuse an answer because your answer is good but is not what i ask you you're just going back restating you know what's in the record and that was on what i ask you know you thought i was answering it his association with this group that's considered to be a terrorist organization that is also a major political party in pakistan if he would say carry out this this action you know in association with his you know with the m p when i am well aware of that that would damage form i mean and that's what the board found that it would have a negative effect on foreign relations on a relocated pakistan we're talking about a political party stand that's considered to be a terrorist organization by the united states is a long term association with that and the board phenol his association coupled with his threat was the danger and  is that association that that connects it to d the definition of security of the united states which is defined as foreign relations are and i hope that answered your question i wasn't trying to evade your question i thought i know you answer out and know you're not the scoob in these cases more so than we are and we rich they appreciate oh i never assume that you were trying to evade the question it's tricky it's just the language stead we're banta here too and his does security to the united states peace is why we bask in a lot of questions about that but no your answers are helpful and your time is up and i  appreciate the real answer to my question are they any of the questions as dolly or judge told them you have from this i go before she leaves all right thank you ma'am thank you so much all right we're terminated that membership with them so why isn't it plausible for the be a or the r j to say he hasn't terminated he concedes what m q m was i did not as i stated before he does have mental issues and it's sometimes very difficult to communicate with him so it's very difficult to say what he's saying is that it's really true or not not there's those things too that but you're you're you're you're hurdle is the standard of review and you know that the of as a substantial even if we know what you're saying what i whatever that's not a desk but yet a full blown proceeding before the ear expertise both of you in helping us out with these cases so the case will be submitted on the brief sure all argument is very helpful to us and we'll get it cited soon as we can thank you and you may be