have asked the court to reserve five minutes of my time for given the extensive briefing permitted by the court if it pleases the court i would like to begin with the post clarification offered by the government in their twenty eight j letter with respect to their position of whether the real i d act amendment amended section twelve thirty one three the withholding of removal statute so that the one central reason x a standard of the government is now clarifying its position that the issues decided under chevrons first which as there are twenty j letter concedes conflicts with the board of immigration appeals position that the statute is silent and thus ambiguous with respect to whether the one central need reasons next to standard applies as a result the parties now agree that the application of chevron's first step results the case the government's argument rick rests on occasions of asylum withholding or of the relief from removal made on or after such date the government cast section one hundred one h two a something more than setting forth an effective date for certain according to the government one in one h two is clear expression of congress is intense that the specific amendments attached to the statutory sections of asylum withholding and other forms of relief  universally applicable and interchangeable to all three forms of relief the government's ambitious reading controverts the plain language of the statute one o one age two refers to specific subsections of the real id act one o prayer opinion we have think it was written by judge tolman called the tino six twenty two f third one thousand seven because i thought that in that decision there are some ports that have assumed and inza teano the one central reason is the way the language of that case reads if i'm remembering it correctly they apply that one cent for reasons standard but they're talking both about asylum and withholding and there are a number of cases that talk about asylum and withholding around the one central reason center but the question presented here is not has not been a directly addressed by the clearly stated that withholding is not tied necessarily to the definition of a refugee and the one central reason amendment is plainly tying asylum to the definition of refugee council i understand your argument as i said i think it has some force but i am still bothered so you understand my concern but i i not making a ruling on the one central reason standard because it was different but it wasn't being addressed there and i think mentioning one central reason when addressing the asylum statute and addressing the withholding statute  zero doesn't it what there was in a clarification being made there and it's and it's not a direct reading i i'm sorry don't have a quote the quote of just as if you know i know it's in my briefs and i can pull  we can let you can address that further and the panel can take a look at it thank your honor i have it right in front of me and i know you ok yeah i mean i i know what you're saying that the one there's one sentence if you have the case it's on page eleven i'm sorry ten fifteen it's that second full paragraph in the right hand column and i think the language that everyone is focusing on is the last sentence of that you're right the court first says years the silence interferes of withholding standard and then says at the end of that paragraph the real i d act of two thousand and five places an additional burden on the you know to demonstrate that one of the five protected grounds will be at least one central reason for persecution  they have a very clear discussion about what asylum is what withholding is and then they clearly delineate which of the and then meant the real id act are applying to the various sections and the only two  corroborate that they apply to withholding yes your honor following up on with what purpose and i read that section of since you know about five times following your argument assuming i agree with you as well the other problem that we is trying to stay in compliance with its obligations under thirty three point one of the convention on refugee status and if if we are here's i'll give an example of why i don't think that one central reason standard should necessarily apply as it would in a fine asylum is a discretionary form of relief it has many higher bars and it's very true that act was trying to make the standard much more onerous but withholding is mandate is it is a mandatory form of leave but it doesn't not grant the same kind of rights to an individual if they are granted withholding very essential ie only able to stay here and work and till the situation in their country of improves now if we were let's take the case of someone who's in who's it was here visiting from syria before the conflict there started if that person the conflict started and their shia which means they are under they would not grant that that individual asylum now if they go back to their village they may face a person they've been there one central reason could be that their village is sunny and they feel like they will face  that conflict under religion but if they go back and they're arrested by the government because they're american army because they visited america that could be a wholly different they're going to be investigated for that and probably tortured etc and that's not necessarily protected ground so an asylum adjudicator when presenting presented with that person may say ok well that more onerous one central reason standard that applies to asylum we could we can't grant them that but we do see that they have a more likely then not a fifth even more than fifty percent chance that they're going to be you know persecuted either by by the one central reason are protected ground or is it is it possible to really determine which one is more central than the other it's you know it could be in part one way or the other the other so yes from even to me re agree with the reasoning then we have the same problems with in the previous criminal case  three judge panel can't overrule you know your honor if you would if we read the statute so that the statute very clear that it says different than the other case i don't and then study the other case of course but the language in the statutes are different  reason is a more onerous standard but the first to meet with holding their already having to meet onerous standards of more likely than not fear of persecution so to ask then on top of that to say well there will it have to be one s both a test for political gain and social group in terms of one central reason but the plain language reading of the statute as well as the intent if you look at congressional intent and you know we would be i was reading here can't the i think that we generally under chevron you really have to look at what the plain language is and the plain language of because of has has really been  a should give its thoughts on one central reason as well and when the meaning of that so i think that that's in the discretion of the courts half the da to do that but i think that a clear reading of the congressional of the extend persecution by just simply making a tenuous connection between the person the the act and the harm that he would suffer from which i don't think that the board with the congress had intended that publicize the government corruption at all in fact if you go through the transcript what the petitioner actually said was he was having these casual just casual discussions with friends of his and which he was just sort of  person people want to talk to because he was the driver for the gentleman and there was this publicized case in which the person was being implicated or or investigated for the murder and he likely as a driver may have some insightful information is  tend to go against petitioners claim that once the complaint was made his client had been suspended from the government which which tells us that the government did not condone or sanction the actions of these police officers the other thing which i should also mention is that the harassment started after the suspension there was no there was no harassment when the initial complaint was made because one of the things he did say was that when i'm filed a complaint they didn't do anything does not have a political opinion he's not he doesn't really understand politics and the other thing that that needs to be address is that his appearance or the appearance of the story on t v he explicitly testified that the reason that he went on television explicitly in matters d t l if you look at the board's previous decision what the board said is that the problems that were in brazil were were buried state to state and that was there was a very large country with lots of area between the states in which i'm sure a person could actually escape from whatever it was you know in that particular state if you go through the actual record and you review some of the a lot of the department state reports what you find is that the majority of all the problems that are  remain within brazil even for nine years after his former employer threatened him kind of allies his claim over all that he's actually fearful of his of his life his willingness to actually go to  n he reported on those police officers and it's very clear in the human rights reports on the record and even as of last year human rights watch released a report talking about extra duty to judicial killings by police it's a massive problem in brazil they kill five to ten people every day extra judicially and when you're targeting police or you're reporting on the police directly in the robbery and death department does nothing about it and then you prove you appear on television and they suspend all search for for two months and then your death threats increase that's clear it's very clear that that's the political opinion he was that he would qualify under political opinion  in terms of the v a silence argument i'd like to quote cardoza fun sikka it says where congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same act it is generally assumed that congress acts intentionally and purposely in the different inclusion or exclusion of congress and it's very clear in the discussion they did not apply one hundred one a two withholding they