who's the parent in this case the question before the court is whether reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that indeed mr mcgee renee's a carried his burden of proof that is more likely than not the diffuser move to the democratic republic of congo he would be in danger of being subjected to torture i just would like to point out a few things the  refugee and he's not an ordinary refugee needs from the d r see the from democratic republic of congo and in among the hundreds of pages of the immigration co into the refugee because we already recognize a rick knowledge he's somebody who cannot is unable to return home and indeed he spent twenty years outside of the camp in a refugee camp because he can't go home so i think in terms of finding whether it's reached his burden the i think the most compelling point of the case for me anyway is among us who would want to be would wear his shoes and arrive at the airport in the congo and not not be afraid that they would be taken off and possibly killed tortured and i think the standard is quite low it's fifty one to forty nine percent and he faces it to sort of conditions which i repeated throughout the recent i'll stop here but is both a took the ethnic was a as you described a failed asylum seeker as opposed to simply someone who was being deported from the united states because that i understand right he would have travelled papers that were obtained from the r c so he's got to be some communication with or or maybe not but why would they know that he had sought and failed to receive asylum how is that something that they would know i think they would know without knowing exactly  what immigration services and secret services in different countries do but they must have documentation that he was out of their country and in rwanda for twenty years so they would not have had any track and if and and also i think i'm sorry but on the record that this is something to be already knows i mean considering the country seems to be in a shambles i don't know why we would make factual assumptions about the quality of their record no what about the b r c i think that the the information the way we know is that he will be arriving from the united states so he will be an asylum seeker asylum means he has in their const act and in the context of the documents which talk about asylum seekers is he is somebody who has left their country voluntarily as a to seek to get away from the country and anybody who's returning in those circumstances as a was an asylum seeker that is your and there's no evidence in the record but you are suggesting that it is a compulsory inference that we should draw or that to be a of the i j a should have drawn that the d r p will consider government will know if he's being returned by the united states they will know it is a return a of oral testimony of knowledge of of the people who read her and how they were met by the d r c at the airport is not in the record i believe it is your honor  that he testified about relatives who had gone back a relative a cousin who had gone back with others they were all killed he escaped the cousin escaped again so i would say yes yes sure and i seen on that going to follow up on judge fuller's question was that part of their testimony that they were met at the airport or detained or are you mixing the testimony that he knew people who were returning were killed with i would defer to the coolers reading where she found that there was such testimony but you're correct your honor that what i was saying was i was specifically what i mean member and it's quite a bit of testimony and i should know it all but what i remember specifically was the cousin talking about crossing the border and that was not returning at an airport and i was as  i was going to say may i ask you if we were to clear the hurdle of whether or not there's some evidence supporting this and focus on the evidence you did offer that this is the experience of others i gather your strongest was imprisoned tortured forced to pay a ransom raped or subjected to sexual harassment right yes your honor ok now i have two questions respecting that evidence the st is some of the things in the list of conduct that has been experienced would qualify as torture and some would not i sat right yes because your client has been denied asylum  withholding largely based on his assault its conduct it's only the likelihood of torture that would secure him release under attack right yes ok so if if you that the agency was compelled by evidence dating from two thousand and eleven some of which reflected torture and some of which did not find that he would likely face torture i just want to be sure i understand if that's basically the evidentiary support i think that the agency again compelled i don't think they're compelled but maybe i'm not using that word well  they should have by fifty one percent have found that yes based on the two thousand and eleven report that also there is the two thousand and sixteen report which they didn't think the evidence about him being a tutsi was persuasive because they thought that circumstances had sufficiently changed not to think that it was likely he would be tortured the whole as mistreatment but what i'm concerned about is if we were to remap for him to consider while some of it was torture what's your argument going to be will some of it is torture and some of it is not there for soon because he would be tortured and drawn assumption that what he would face in two thousand and twenty is what people faced in two thousand and eleven is that is that basically what you've got yes what i have is that for him it's exponential so it's not just that not that he would be tortured in two thousand and twenty maybe it's this dates from two thousand and eleven and it talks about some people being tortured that's we have to assume that the reporter is using that word as our law uses that word rape which i think has been recognized as torture the other for the other actions though despicable would not qualify it as torture how do you get to this evidence being enough to compel a conclusion that he that he'd likely face torture in two thousand and twenty i think part of that is that  opportunity to submit additional contemporaneous evidence and then it could be applied back be allowed if you didn't have anything contemporaneous to two thousand and sixteen i mean i understand if if i were saying to you oh your two thousand sixteen evidence is now stale but you didn't have contemporaneous evidence at the time this was heard and that you say there was error committed i think it wasn't contemporaneous and with  contemporaneous i think has to go back at least a couple of years you can't get it a report which shows years worth of behavior on the day that you're filing but yes i think that i think your honour's correct that it  that it was a few years back but given the circumstances that he's been in for four years and that the at the time the i just said circumstances had changed  seventeen report say with respect to torture i'm not sure because i started by asking you whether your strongest evidence was the  forced migration review report that talked about the monitoring in two thousand and eleven so i'm just trying to make sure i look at whatever it is in two thousand and seventeen and what it says about torture you're  reminding me of something that you did say before about the circumstances changing i do think the torture is also very strong argument because part of why the judges again i think let's just stick with me for a moment what is what is the two thousand to seventeen report that you're now relying on or want us to rely on and what does it say about torture there was a u k i'm just quickly looking through here with the british home office survey yes yes but that talked about people being questioned by the national intelligence agency and can shop right on the right report i'm just looking here i have  in ok just tell me what your two thousand and seventeen report is that i read that i should be sure to look at  monitored in two thousand and eleven am i right or am i missing something please help me the yes the s m r talked about people who were in two thousand and eleven so the report is more recent correct that article was two thousand and thirteen reporting on what happened in two thousand and eleven and i don't think i thought that the forced migration review article was february two thousand almost every returned asylum seeker monitored in two thousand and eleven for one thing the forced migration review as i read this simply has in one sentence or two sentence summary of various reports is that a fair description of what  it reflects whether they're talking about hundreds of people dozens of people or fewer it does not reflect that have you actually looked at it i mean there's a there's a hyperlink i mean have you actually read this article from just will i mean it's not in the record but it would be surprising if they were to learn that the report talked about a number of people who were actually monitored between hundred and twenty thousand one hundred and eleven average talked about some total of either three or four people a year on average you know and it's outside the record i know i would i would not be surprised i agree with you on i would not be surprised if there are a how it seems to me that how can we call that the a for saying that this one line is insufficient to demonstrate whether or not there would more likely than not be subject to torture upon its return we have no information on the record and it was burdensome it of how many people we're talking about over what period of time and how many fell into the category of torture as opposed to say reason prison i guess that's my puzzlement if we have no information about what on earth the actual findings of this article were alex and that they were what they talked about i don't see how he met his burden and he was represented by coun yes and i think when we're going by when the the organization says that almost everybody one hundred percent of five hundred percent of a one thousand people so it's not how many people upon return are tortured it's that almost every one of those people is tortured so it's only five return and four people are orchard that's significant because he'll be number six for example who's returned and so the likelihood of his being tortured is not based on the number of people who were but the percentage of those so i think it is a powerful document and i think it was diminished  of in the united states i would also point out that your practical question on that is going to need a passport to get back to me i may have been out of the country for what is it close to twenty years that's they could draw an interest but i would say that that would be a speculative claim because there are return e's who have never fought silence or just being removed simply because they are an overstay or they are a criminal anneliese was not applied for any relief or returning who to i believe in the forced migration report that failed applications they may be questioned me they are often systematically summoned to the immigration office but they are only sometimes questions so again these are his claim would have to rely on a series of speculative visuals to occur and that is insufficient under the demanding standard that is required for cap ex i also wanted to address on conditions that existed at the time that he was sent to refugee status i'm certain to pose on the testimony i thought one of his relatives testified that he knew of someone who was a family member and therefore to see who had returned only a year prior to the testimony was killed and do you recall the testimony mind getting that date wrong i thought there was at least one person i'm sorry yes there was i did when i was referring to show why the people were attacked to the attackers were whether or not the government was involved all of these questions to be relevant to whether or not he could ultimately succeed in the cat's name so without those details without that proper ration i one isolated incident without sufficient support as one care to the wealth of information in the face on a country report that do not reflect that these are targeted and i just ask you i mean people and injuring a fifteen and i thought he was saying that they were tutsis and that they were killed by enter hama who i understand is is a hutu group and that was in two thousand and seventeen in miami and i may have those facts wrong but is that the government is in any way targeting to do so again while there is ongoing conflict in the agency recognize that it insufficient to show that it's more than likely than not that their particular practitioner would be targeted for harm applicant to show that each step is more than likely than not to a part but when you're talking about aggregating harm you would have to show that each of those things make unlikely for target so in that case he would have to show that the government is interested in him because he is a return to file and speaker and that if they are interested in him they would subject him to mistreatment that rises to the level of torture but the ethnicity would factor into that then that would be a part of that but in this situation he keep them rather separate so he's claiming that either he'll be subject to violence from the government because the toothy or because he's an asylum seeker and he failed on either one of those to show that burden or if he makes that the each of these characters race and it's if these features of his comply make the other one worse that's right but that he would have to prove each one was like think i was talking to myself there are new saying how kind you were to give me an extra minute since the st part was so long i just wanted to say that with the forced migration review this goes to judge nardini which was two thousand and seventeen there was reference to the justice st which was two thousand and eleven but the article also referred to two thousand and fifteen elation of what france and talked about congolese returning then there was the u k report which was from two thousand and fourteen and then with the country report but what are those reports say about torture if the british reported to the home office studies that what you're talking about that one talked about questioning which wouldn't rise to torture yet i just want you to tell us with these other reports that ha and it says that they were treated almost every returned asylum seeker was treated it was treated as an act of treason wait a minute wait a minute you're mixing two things you said two separate sentences two separate zero information about anything bad or good but following these people how is that even a useful piece of information i don't have because of the phone situation i'm not in front of the computer so i can't see that i just have my crease in front of me unfortunately and it says here however maybe it's to me it looks like claiming a claiming asylum in another country may be treated as an act of treason and then said that the country reports didn't show that the trixie's there was still an ongoing genocide and i think that they did not read the country reports understanding just because they didn't say hutu and tutsi all of the organizations or many of the fighting that they were talking about was actually against tootsies so our country reports were not specific but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the trustees who were actually the focus of the violence by the government or