sorry your client made inconsistent statements about his reasons for my getting accuse me he mean inconsistent statements i don't believe they were inconsistent i think they w consistent given the fact that he also had p t s d all found to be credible by the i j a he made different statements different statements at different times right that's what people  they are don't usually make two statements of the same time exactly when the make different statements so time or you know so it was a one point he says i didn't know about this and then the point he said i h e and the i j decide to believe his first statement i don't know that's not a good explanation correct but when he said i didn't know that was at the point where he had no clue about evaluated by a professional clinically evaluated by professional experts and had confirmation anybody could say oh yeah i have p t s d but that doesn't mean that they actually have it well it's entirely possible th are true he didn't know and because he had p t s d he was disabled in various ways for making investigations and so on and the other have to say that i'm not sure we get to review any fact finding by the a on the question that goes to whether or not the time bar applies i'm so i speaking only from myself we have not consulted discipline at all i think he's probably time barred and we can't do anything about it i'm much more interested in other factors such as the people i think you're still missing the target ok well the issue is whether or not we've got a little social group and he claims that the social group and therefore protected because he is opposed to the gang and he's objected to going to me in the entry it's also true as a matter of fact that he's not just anybody who's objecting to going into a gang he's a returning american who is shown or known to have money from the arab league with the united states and fact as soon as he comes back is friend i say it in quotation marks miguel set him up exactly so how am i supposed to look at how much motion to find the social group merely someone who opposes games or someone coming back from the united states who opposes games well i would say would be couple with all of these other factors trying to mention that he spoke english he lived in the united states he was familiar with the us customs in the way of living here and he had was really a recent return to his hometown so he was easily identifiable as a new person especially he was driving a friend's truck with a different license plate so automatically people were questioning him and it was a small town social group definition that you advance narrow it to someone not only who's opposing gangs but also someone who's coming back from the united states or did you just say anyone who oppose s gangs and does so openly i don't think we we briefed it this detailed but all of this information was in the record so i'm just trying to flesh it out for the arguments and also these people recognize not only by their answer we just first question you did not propose the group as being limited to people who  recognize this particular group as well as general public so much so that there is a familiar term used to describe these types of people as said by the country experts testimony under eight which the term is popo chose so there is already a familiarity by the general public that has an actual word for people fitting into this group the social group i just mentioned may have please the court matthew george for the attorney general petitioner first to find his social group page three a one of the record is people who express their opposition to the drug cartel members he's consistently use that definition for his social group and never expanded it or narrowed it to the specific facts that the court has brought up today to the extent he's trying to now narrow it or alter it it's and the court would like your stiction to review that social group other than the one that he's defined before the agency consistently both to the immigration judge to the board and also in his brief to the court the agency and has consistently advanced at least until today your honor i understand your argument that didn't make the argument but what if he had made the argument is a social group that is defined as returning from the united states  a people who are poll shows who also openly oppose recruitment by gangs would not be sufficiently visible and discrete group that i can answer your honor that would be a question for the agency to resolve based on whatever factual record was should we remained in the agency to ask them a question no petitioners never raised the social group that is now coming up today well he did he was encouraged to do so i confess he just raised it if that's something he wishes to pursue he the motion to reopen would be an excellent platform to do that if that's something he now believes he has eligibility for however on the record that he has submitted in the social perhaps think he could prove that it's socially distinct perhaps he could prove it's particular but that was not the question it was before the agency and that's why the statute and the court's precedent would say it's an exhausted in the court can't review it because that is a very factual actually intensive question but the group that he did he did raise is not cognizable it's not particular it's not socially distinct on the social social distinction question  provided no evidence that mexican society perceives considers a recognizes his group as a group he only provided evidence of the persecutors perspective which the board has said it was not sufficient to think the b a a the i j a were correct it seems to me that they just focused on one national and not local i'm concerned about that that condom a and whether you agree or disagree with the decision that respect parts as the court has set out in cases such as garcia million it's not just acquiescence is not the be all and end all there's also the likelihood of torture aspect so even if the board say entirely screwed it up and erred  or other person acting in an official capacity that seems to be something we can consider local officials as well as the national initials right yes your so we can look at the focus local seed here and i don't see in the record with has been any determination as to whether or not there's acquiescence here by local officials from embassies something i think the courts reading of it your honor is correct the board here focused a little more on the national efforts however that's only a part of the  likelihood of torture is also part of the inquiry and there the agency correctly set out the standard correctly applied the fact i was correctly applied i got a problem with that i'm reading from page four of its order   finding that the respondents firouz of generalized violence not particular to him well i'm looking at page eighteen of the i j a order which is a r fifty seven the i j a rights responded feel to identify anyone in mexico who would want to harm him or know that he was asked to join the gang accepted but then fled the country what's wrong his quote friend miguel set him up his friend miguel knows exactly what happened and his friend miguel is right there when he comes back from the united states to inform the gang that here even here he is again the that's just wrong well that's a it's a fact and it's wrong it's an m france that that's being drawn based on  it's a statement that's wrong the statement is respondent failed to identify anyone in mexico who would know that he was asked to join a gang accepted but then fled the country miguel most that so it's wrong so what do we do with that or what i think the board is getting at is the overall likelihood of torture the knowledge of someone today regarding the refusal regarding you so what do we do that it seems to me that there may be a very clear likelihood that he's going to be subjected to torture given my gal is there a gal was pressured into setting him up the first time i rather suspect this may happen again i think there's a sufficient likelihood so now what well first of all it's not just whether the court thinks evaluating it in the first instance it's whether the record compels and then there's also the other factors my conclusion namely that petitioner did not report this gang activity to the earth the cartel activity the police cartel members have not contacted his family that his family's not been harmed his brother sister and mother still live in  without incident and also that he could relocate they did make a relocation determination did they not that he was capable of relocating to another part of mexico correct yes your honor i guess he had the skills to be able to do that and it was i don't have a front of me and his family still there they have not been harmed during that period of time that's correct and petitioners expert testified that that's something the cartels would do they would seek to go after family if they if they felt he was somehow refusing them or had angered them or something that the agency has pointed out as as a factor in this case and the record supports that the notion of relocation it seems to me may be infected  and they clearly didn't understand the danger given that miguel was right there to rat on him what do i do with that aspect of the relocation well relocation i don't think was tied to that specific facts the the board certainly looked at the fact that petitioners young he's healthy he's fluent spanish he has training and work experience and looked at other areas in mexico particular mexico city where cartels influence was much lower and then found analyzing all that including all the other factors not just the relocation finding looking at it holistically found that petitioner failed to meet his burden and so what the court would have to do is say looking at all that holistically this record compels a contrary conclusion compels that he does have a likelihood of torture so even if one particular fact maybe isn't that firm that doesn't of their hometown are easily recognizable by the locals and they're also question into where they are who who are they're going question was you said there's a term called porch rose right yes it's also right here at the very end of his name and this specific thing you said it means is some of the opinion from that states who oppose the darker yes and that's why they didn't see so point out where it says people returning from united states who oppose  though well i mean it doesn't really say that they oppose it it says that they're identifiable by returning yes not all of them oppose the drug cartel some may be neutral some may have may support mark or go so we don't know i mean so the question is your argument was this must be a social group because it even has a name ok but the name doesn't apply to but the killer social group that just pleasure suggested to you and you adopt it so readily yes it applies to every porches applies to everybody who comes back from united states correct you know which is a lot of people direct and then i was just trying to fine tune that and the name doesn't really support your argument so i'm saying not not right now and the thing you've pointed out to me in the record shows does not is not narrow it is whoever comes back from the yesteryears thank you also and so if anything it cuts against to those sort of a name for another group which is not your group at a or one forty two when he said two men one of them he named so he had actually had the name of that person so that was also a contradiction of the testimony and the  where is this a r one forty two ok thank you thank you so much