relief before this court this is a real person who suffered real and we think outrageous harm and the government even to cordon in violation of this court's orders knowing full well that occur they actually can deliver it to the salvadoran authorities and even in the face of this violation the government in our has done very little to correct  government frankly is not going to take responsibility for this country just violation that we believe the court needs to hold the government responsible so we believe that a finding of contempt along with a meaningful section refuses to allow him to leave the country just a little bit in that states without cooperation from that government can do to facilitate his return and i think two points to that  a possibility to cure with what is actually a true defense in a contempt proceedings which is the possibility to comply with a court order here there is no dispute that the government had the ability to comply with this court orders there is no dispute that it's not sorry for the government and the ability to comply before it did but now that it has ordered him against our court order to coerce the government into compliance the why it's beyond there oh i actually don't agree with that your honor and i want to explain why but st this question really goes to the propriety of the section it doesn't go to the threshold question of whether the government should be found in contempt all the elements of civil contempt are satisfied and there is no impossibilities issue because the government had the ability to comply as to the in possibility to chill work which is i think  to see whether the atmosphere even possible that something that could have happened in the last couple weeks nothing has happened in addition the government could apply pressure to help secure that is if he'll is result expeditiously his something that we have requested now that he has been released we made that request in our status report we even followed up with a separate e mail communication with the department of justice asking for that type of protection which is really the  provide security all of those things i think seem well within the realm of possibility here and we perceive nothing the government clerk in this situation not only was jacked it to horrible treatment for ten months now he's out he's been out for over two and a half three weeks and the government's done nothing to protect it which was the basis for his petition for review before the school shooting short that he would be killed that's why he wanted to stay in the united states and the government when he did provide we made a formal request through our most recent status report of approximately two weeks ago for protection and that is of that the stocks as we received an email from department of justice council was going to be forwarded to ice that was two weeks ago and we've heard nothing and we are very very concerned about that if they're not going to return him which we think the government hasn't even got to the process truly whether that's a possibility at the very hopefully start a conversation with the government where the government would go through some modicum of due diligence to see what was possible that conversation never happens radically and i wouldn't happen give me some sense of the c so i ended my understanding is that the government has represented to us that in response to the violation of this day order they are have made  reflect that as soon as this attempt issue arose in september is it up to early october the united states government didn't gauge that also we're going to attach a about the possibility of renewable but from the status frankly with the government status reports at some point during this process up until early october the government washed its hands of our client that is the impression we have because the status reports of the government don't reflect that the government has done anything since at least early october and certainly the situation at the very least has changed since july th or clients been released but again no effort knowing gauge from the government as to what if anything the government could do number one because of the failure to consider evidence is specially for the cat claim and also in light of what happened after the deportation in violation of the court's order so let me start with the failure to consider the evidence that neither the immigration the consider the evidence that he was going to be detained in one of the prisons governed by the extraordinary measures and i'm just going to refer them as gang preaches now appears to agree that severe human rights violations are happening in those prisons yet they denied a claim because quote unquote he has not submitted any evidence that he will go there but there is specific evidence and record compose the opposite conclusion probability of him being detained one of those presents was about eighty percent that's based on simple calculation of percentages in the record can i ask you on that point is that evidence inconsistent with the statement that there was not any evidence that he will go to such a prison in other words what i was what i am asking is you presented probabilistic evidence and then there is a non probabilistic statement by the  that there is not any evidence that he will go there are those too inconsistent your view and if so why you know i said the evidence if a pace in use at their current or former gang member you're just repeating the point that i'm asking you about this statement is not a probabilistic statement that the court made the court said there is no not any evidence that he will go there but there's not any evidence that he actually will go there there is evidence that there is a likelihood that he will go there and i guess what i'm asking one possibility is we could read that statement to say it ignored the probabilistic out another possibility is it did not ignore the problems that evidence it just didn't give it the weight that you think it should be given and that that would be its own independent error if it's the latter i guess to get to the likelihood scenario you'd because it's likelihood of torture not likely is going to the prison you'd have to multiply the likelihood of him going to the prison but the likelihood of what would happen once he was there so like we which which which is your you seem to be making the argument that we have to read the i j a as if it ignored that evidence all together yes is our view that i j b i a the agency as a whole they completely ignored the evidence when they were aware of their same practice their reference to it in any of the opinions in the fact sections that see i understand what you're saying there are two points and one wouldn't be moot if you have but your response to whether the cat clan to the extent it's based on being put in a prison and subjected to extraordinary measures is now  three criminal charges one was illicit organization charged nd was terrorist organization chart and rd as homicide and one of the illicit or terrorist organization to work in addition charges to war was dismissed conditionally so what th to this countries so that the asylum and withholding claims can be on the cackling can be heard because we don't know after their heard him that he sent again where he'll be sent on the on the government's perspective we're it i just ask you about the asylum yes your honor you want to talk about the merits of the asylum yes your honor sir if the court is inclined to consider edition evidence because of what happened in violation of this court's order the petitioners asylum and also with holding claims are significantly strengthened because one of the theory that he advanced was in quickly accused of a suspected gang member based persecution a social group petitioner advanced the argument that because he did not have any physical control or legal control over the relationship between his abusive mother and himself when he was young he asked the agency to found he has met the burden for prosecution on a kind of immediate family relationship and obviously he was not specifically aware of the actual or motive but not because because he was a minor but nonetheless the relationship between him and his mother was not something that he can just cut off and just run away from and what's the evidence that you have of the mother's motive being that he is out of his child status  know he that really based on his specific testimony that he was abused by his abusive mother there was no other he testified that that his mother made certain statements about regretting that he was born things like that yes the mother mentioned that he she should not have him at all and government considered that part of the record as a person at this period and it is our position that's not personal dispute but that's because of the relationship between his mother and him and for that reason he he made an argument that a child to the abuse if the  action was a corona account of the immediate family relationship now i believe it's very important that it is true that he is no longer a minor it is true but if if he has met the burden for past persecution then the agent's decision then should the court should remain the case of the agency so that the agency can consider the humanitarian asylum or any other of these positive aspects of the asylum and be holding because to be i did not address many is it still here you're putting your position that he would be entitled to a salary we on the assumption the prison conditions there are so severe that no one should be subjected then he can still eligible for a cat because the defer remove or under the cap it's not barred by nonpolitical serious crime outside of the united states it's not barred by a particularly serious crime premature for our purposes to wonder about this there's some suggestion in the chat part of the reefing that challenges the district court of the stay order that he was prejudiced by this in a way that should affect the relief that we grant on the withholding of the asylum claim as the caller who just have would you suggest it's not evident to me that his absence of being in this country affects his ability to make the arguments to us about those issues but are to if one can you address that but to if we are to if we remain because of the error that we find as to the withholding claim of the asylum claim  fine if we were to remain on either the asylum or the withholding claim it is the record open at that point or is there i mean what will be the effect of him being not in the country  words that are going to be just the record to be just the same record that we're looking at now so it's no different the couric can provide an instruction to the agency to allow the petitioner to have an opportunity to supplement the record because of what happened and obviously it could depend on the procedure juncture of these criminal case nor so it depends on the outcome of the his criminal case but that but court can end this provide instruction for the agency to consider evidence because the instant case is sufficient is compelling a circumstance but if this is going to be an opportunity to supplement the record in a normal course you would want to supplement it with facts that can only be the all the record then b i can send the case to the aide to the immigration judge and that i presume that that would be after him being returned to the united states your honor so we are not asking the agency to guess the question is what is like maybe it's all very mature but i just would like to have some idea of what it is what's the effect of a remain and if we're remaining with the contemplation that would allow the reopening of a record would he be able to participate in that if the form is not not adequate tool to forward the agencies to examine the evidence and hear the argument and in a supplement the supplemental record we can arrange the video  of course the government and its embassy it's my understanding that the embassy has the video capacity capability to reins those hearings inside of the embassy i don't see why the government would not be a welling to provide support when it is all government who has caused this problem cause and deny that the motion for sanctions i'd like to begin your honor by just emphasizing with respect to the erroneous removal here in the violation of this this court's order  i'm the deputy assistant as deputy assistant attorney general in the civil division at main justice i oversee the office of immigration litigation i want to make clear to the court that this is a very serious matter to us we're sorry for the violation of the court's order this is this was an unfortunate problem we as we try to explain without without making excuses this was inadvertent we do acknowledge the error and and we've moved to take remedial actions to address it to address the comment section to return folks who have been taken to a staging facility back to the appropriate field office to kind of add a number of works so that it will be hard for this series of factors to have to combine to to have this happen again honor what have you done to secure this reach out sure your honor i think so in addition to some of the points we've described our status reports in addition to just looking into these ability given heard word exactly as to where things stand we can update the court when we hear hear more from from them but we have checked on things and i can i can report more more on that one when i when i hear more i think where we stand now though your honor is that we still have this difficulty of bringing the petitioner back to the united states while his criminal proceedings remain unresolved we identified that earlier status report and we still have that present that we we have we have done that your own wife that why hasn't the government i mean that would seem to be the type of thing that the very point of the order was to give the really get an opportunity to make the case he shouldn't be sent there because of  mistreatment and i would think if you were trying to make sure that we were as close to status quo ante as possible as you're representing that the allegation that he actually suffered the mistreatment would be of great concern understood your honor i can i can see what we can we can try to find out there i think this is your honor knows it is it is a sensitive kind of area we are dealing with a fellow sovereign governments and we do we do take understood that the the points that the allegations of this issue has made regarding his imprisonment you know if we can i can see try to try to track more of those things down we've tried to get again i think it's have you responded to the requests for security protection we have not your honor i imagine that that would be a difficult why would you imagine it i mean you there is a request for protection for security it's not difficult to respond to i mean has there any been any effort to it is just been ignored i don't understand the position the government saying that that we've been represented that he was released he was concern for security and they were you were reached out to is the government's response that that's not the type of thing you have to respond to i think we'd we'd want to be careful before we take the step to provide that's not my my st question is is that the government's position that you don't have to respond to that request i don't think we were saying that we shouldn't respond to in touch with those officials i have i have not personally personally eat with those officials who have you have you been in touch with anyone who has been in touch with those officials or people in our office you know have have reached out to those those folks here and you've spoken to those people yes your honor i can i think what they tell you about what those people were told by the salvadoran official i mean i think the latest we have on that your honor is what we we've indicated in our in our status reports and i'm in it but i guess we don't have the latest information from the attorney general's office you know salvador in response to the real release and just where things stand there your honor but i can we're working on and i can follow up and give the court more information we have we have some things you never would have to do you know the name of the person who's contacted el salvador outside of prison now he's a risk of being killed he alleges he's only there because in violation of our order your client sent him there and yet apparently that hadn't yet prompted you to pick up the phone and say tell me what we can do to get him protection my correct i think you know i i don't i don't i don't know about that i mean i think we're in kind of a person directly responsible for following four hundred in your office is or what washington is and was taking this seriously there's a pending motion to a judge the government in contempt and it sounds like the more attention is i don't i don't think so you and i think again we we have a difficult situation where we're we're trying to get more information on it we are  and i can i will get more information in response to your honor's questions i understand the concerns and i will i will i will follow up and get more information like but when you say we're trying to look into it i go back  question have you even had a phone call with anyone regarding him getting protection as he's standing there right now i don't i i don't know that i've not had that phone call your honor i think you know we've tried to reach  our our our normal channels that we've been dealing with to get this information it's just a it's not a have you tried to reach out without picking up your phone i understand you're on what we can follow up and would it help would it would it help perhaps if we issued an order saying the united states violated the attorney general violated one of our orders and apparently the people handling it in the office do not feel a sense of urgency and we're asking the attorney general to pay attention to this personally and advise us the attorney general himself what's being done with that assist you your honor i don't think you need to i will we will follow up and we will get good information in response to the court's questions we pressed him with the court's focusing maybe you could just help help me so we were on the same page when you say you'll get us information what do you mean by that what is the information you think you need to provide it sure your honor what we can learn about the feasibility of the returning the petitioner to the united states when and whether anything on that exchange whether anything can be done with respect to protecting him in response to his claims of harm and the like while he's in el salvador and who do you think is responsible for providing that protection that you're understanding is that you need information about whether al salvador can provide that protection or are you going to inquire about whether united states government is going to be able to provide him protection i think i need to find out just what and whether there are what the options could what would what what would be feasible and you know foreign country for somebody who is under criminal charges like this i want to be just careful about that you know we can swallow the merits here and as well as the just for not for not having these answers your honor i will say that it my understanding is it's been difficult to get some answers in in these recent weeks i and i'm sort of the court that i don't have better answers but i will follow up expeditiously to get the court not answer so the questions that your honor have been asking is there a plan to respond to counsel's request for protection in other words to contact with the representation is that there was a request to the united states government for protection that's gone unanswered for two weeks i understand you're going to try to get information about your options are you have any plan to contact them in response to it to acknowledge that you received and give them a sense of what you're doing with the time frame we will do that you didn't have having not heard more information from else salvatore about what's available i just don't think we had unfortunately more to report but we will we will we will respond and and let them know what we have found out that's the latest i kind of i kind of have their i'm sure it's not the case but i think you should appreciate the way it comes across is that who have you really don't care that much it's not much of a priority to them that this guy is facing death because of the violation of our court or you know i i'm you know i get i'm sorry your honor i didn't mean to leave that impression i think you know this is something that we responded very rapidly to we regret very much it is a big problem we acknowledge the error we tried to take steps to address it we have to be tricky circumstances were we have somebody in a foreign country involved in a foreign criminal court took it very seriously we take it seriously as well again i understand that i the court wants more answers and we will probably work too to get you to answers and keep the court prize again i don't want to send any misimpressions about the importance of it and and we will work to get those answers because we're the court and what the concerns are that you have identified five minutes remaining if i may your honor i want to make sure to  address the merits of the merits briefly here with the time i have left i would argue your honor that the agency here came to reasonable conclusions as to both both the asylum and withholding issues as well as the convention against torture issue these are questions of substantial evidence the agency's conclusions are are well supported by by substantial evidence that the key point i think on that it addresses most of the asylum established that a central reason for that was a family relationship similar with as she said i wish you were never born we don't understand that was because it was the child again there was there was that evidence your honor but again it's  question of what the record compels to loosen up well the record there anything to suggest he's simply saying he doesn't say i know it wasn't because i was a child he was a child he was a child she abused him completely saying he was a burden why was he a burden other than the fact that the family male relationship and she said i wish you were never born what goes in the other direction sure i mean one is that it just it has to be clear that the actual reason is the family relationship and these could be people who mother and stepfather there mean to you know whoever's around whoever small it doesn't have it is there anything in the record to suggest that's the case that they're mean to small people well the i think there is and you're on what it's it's it's just a requirement of the statute and the requirement is that there be a nexus not that the victim be able to attest to the motive of the victim only has to put forward evidence as to the motive and the evidence as the motive the victim put both with the statements of the mother and the obvious fact that the statements are all who are with the familial status which is why the child was a bird most of all people are not burden to her a child her own child is because she has a responsibility to that person that's the claim about why there was a tie to the child big big yeah you're on i think it's one of these situations i would liken it to i think the difficulty was with with that kind of analysis your honor would be that child abuse would almost certainly just that would that would make it almost a per se  nexus when somebody beats a child because you know what else does and says you are a burden to me and i wish you were never born in that circumstance we would say it is likely the cuz it was the child again i'm  sure i'm not sure that's that's right your honor i mean i think it's again it's a question does this record come hell that pollution rev and then just support it even if it even agency i think could go either way on that you're on i don't think you have the sort of compulsion that this court would need to reject that and i think a similar point goes for the uncle we have we have just even less evidence of harm or affirmative evidence this was it was a personal debt dispute between between family members over money that led to that and i think this court has a good motive on the asylum claim period you've got somewhere it says look you know i don't know what my mother's motivation was it as i said you know it is as he said a couple times in in his declarations he does have these verbal abuse from his mother your honor  i just want to address the cat playing evidence and then that last point that we discussed with your opposing counsel about what would happen on remand given that he's no longer in the country sure your honor i think  the cat claim your honor i think the shortcoming with the cat claim here with the lack of really specific evidence is that to the petitioner himself i think what the agencies were recognized in and were relied on was that they looked at the it looked at the evidence of country conditions they saw it was about patterns it was not specific to the petitioner it noted big problems in the prison context and overcrowding like but the agency also recognized look you know el salvador prohibits torture there's not a specific intent to harm here they've taken steps to address this overcrowding issue by building some new prisons those points all all defeat the nature of the torture claim so again 's it's still not clear that petitioner is a suspected gang member i would end up in in one of those those prisons based on that record your honor and even then to me even if you were to end up in one of those things the question that you would with respect to the a that you agree that neither one reference that study i don't i don't recall them specifically calling polling that piece out your honor i think and then on the remained issue if you could just address that what would happen if we are if we were to say that the reco if the government unable to facilitate him in participating in that is there any reason for us not to simply order the relief rather than remain because then it would seem like the violation of the war did prejudice  i i think i think i take your honour's point i think i think i just want to be sure about what the options are available so i can describe those to the to the court and we i can i can look  brief i know we exceeded our time but i do very concerned about where we stand with respect to our client and the contempt issue from our observations at th oral arguments today and frankly the government's actions for the last nine months what we have seen is no ownership no one taking ownership over this particular issue and our client who's a danger right now has been in great danger through our compl have been an extermination group and starvation and so i know that the government talks a lot about foreign policy sensitivities and it's limited what it can do that's precisely the point of course of sanctions right to push the government to  the right thing to comply with the courts or everything that i've heard today i think really warrants not only a contempt finding but serious sanctions we all the elements for a civil threshold civil contempt find d l s content or had notice what do you agree what you mean by sanctions if they're not aimed at helping your client he referring to something other than trying to help a client i think what the sections are designed to do your q compel the governments compliance with the underlying court orders that's actually what we're seeking here one option as we mentioned quite extensively in our breach is a daily coercive fight until our client is richard we don't think the government has met its burden on  possibility but as to the threshold question of just contempt we've met all the elements of the order was clear the government was on notice and the order was in fact violated all of those things are undisputed by the government the a possibility defense that's raised by transpired one of the things we don't invest as much in our brief but i think it warrants attention both of the stakeholders in this case there was a significant delay i think from when loyal ultimately transmitted the orders to ice and that