in this matter the board of immigration appeals and the immigration judge didn't follow the wall that was passed on the united nations convention against torture or even discussed the past torture inflicted upon my client the i and a migration judged and find this conduct to rise up to the level of torture we believe it constitutes torture in so far as the country conditions are pakistan flagrant is one of the most abusive countries in the world and the united states department of state has designated it as such and also is a signature to the united any kind of civil law barbarity the way he was treated as an animal and no individual should be treated like that regardless of what you are or who you are he was never ever convicted of any crimes in pakistan but he fled because he was accused of murder whereas there was a thought that he might be accused of murder right there is a police report outstanding accusing him of murder but there was never any charge actually filed it's not true i don't know about that he didn't wait to find out because he didn't want to be tortured so he left the country after as he was identified as a as a person who had committed murder and it was some sectarian violence at that time is not true this constant and sunni were in conflict and they still are and has pakistan taken any made any efforts to to prosecute terrorists in this country what they did recently on and that was on the motion to reopen as they went back to his organization in the one nine hundred ninety s the picked up individuals hung up and shot them into capitated them without a trial that set up new courts to deal with the issue over there this happened in two thousand and fourteen and fifteen which is the bit different yes and you want us to take judicial notice of a newspaper article i think that talked about the execution of two terrorists as a right to members of the service of a correct and then in that same article even want to look at the entire article is a correct we want you to look at the caliber of all the evidence provided correct it just help me here isn't it isn't a fact that those were after a certain trials that occurred the execution that's the issue it was a military trial without any due process they were tried they were hung the next day but there were others who had killed countless people that were also in the same article and they were the government was prosecuting them as well wasn't the government wasn't prosecuting him that civil liberties of their rights had been taken away and that would in military court and if you believe in pakistan a military tribunal is a due process court of law then you're correct there were didn't hunger and killed this and that is not up to pakistan to decide it's up to pakistan to decide but if you're as member and the signatory of the convention against torture you can't do that it's against the law to executing people for murder degrading inhuman treatment by the government including we can use this example my clients burning him with cigarettes beating him with that this and hand stanley loses and consciousness hanging upside down on a metal bar in front of everyone whipping him with leather straps yes i feel that's the definition of torture under any code that's torture but if the government decides that it's going to have military tribunals  this issue is not that is not a national issue for pakistan to decide how they handle terrorism that's what they did in north korea with the young gentleman who was beaten and he was sent back over here and he died here mike my understanding of your argument is that your position is that the past treatment your client suffered rise does rise to the level of torture is your view and that what he's concerned about and objecting to in terms of future conduct is more of the same is that right because you don't have a lot of time left i'm looking at the b i am penned in the last page which is that excerpt five says the respondent is no longer associated with the s e s and has not provided evidence of warrants for his arrest for past criminal charges and that says or any other evidence showing that the pakistani government has any interest in him my question is whether or not at the time this the the i j f had the original record did that include the statements from his family members or were those are were you trying to get those in on a motion to reopen you know they were all provided before so we understand family members were the people in pakistan who stated that once he fled that family was started and there's a letter from an attorney the police are looking for him the police have been coming there's a letter from his father stating it there's a letter from his brother alleging that these all of that's to place in ninety nine two thousand right and i appreciate that that's what they took place that is your  position it's just i'm trying to make sure when when you say aside when the v a says there was no other evidence indicating the place was looking for him that was those letters were part of the record for the not correct of the original record and the i'm sorry to interrupt  he as he went to make a police report and asset protection from the shia groups who are targeting him beating him kidnapping him the police refused to throw him out was there any credibility determination made in this case positive everyone said he was very correct so the world the are going to actually work for him the current evidence was as yet she just stated in two thousand and fourteen fifteen they arrested his colleagues and members for events that you will put two minutes counsel you can plan on two minutes when you come back sure these men are good morning jeffrey all meant in the united states department of justice for the respondent may please the court  were particularly helpful in a torture case that's a legal conclusion the description that counsel just gave was in a report from a social worker who did not testify although they were located in the l a area and that particular report  objected that the person was not subject to examination and the report was marked only for id so there's a failure of proof even on that level we have to it is a bit curious if to hear the government contest  the government certainly had an opportunity to cross examine this individual we've got a positive credibility determination so what do we do with a controlling authority well i the the i j found that mr cameron was sufficiently credible those were the words of the judge are you probability of arrest mr camorra testified that he didn't know if there were charges pending against him in that speech five forty six he testified at one point that the case was closed he had made no inkling so forgive me for nothing when we know those points and here's my problem with them he it's speculative it's based on speculation the board pointed that out he's made no fresh inquiries since one nine hundred ninety nine as to whether or not the charges are pending there's no evidence in the record as to whether there are there are any charges assuming there were well tell me as we talk about speculation as you did is did the family have some comment on his ability to live safely in the country he did in fact there was a mr qazi q a z i who had visited pakistan who had met with the family who suggested to him that he might be possible for him to move elsewhere he's a sunni muslim in a country that seventy five percent sunni pop majority population was the family itself subjected to any terrorist activities as a result of the charges so th reopen which counsel alluded to there's there's no evidence since the dates since the november two thousand and thirteen immigration judge decision even dr kennedy's report that the board said there was no explanation why it could have been submitted  sooner and there's still no explanation to this moment as to why that could not be considered sooner there's a if it's a failure of proof here on earth and the board properly wrecked recognise that no record effort and compels  reversal of the finding that that he is not more likely than not to be tortured and as far as emotional reopen goes there's no piece of discretion here and none of the evidence is anything qualitatively different from from what was or could have been presented or in the a scenario where that might be relevant in an extradition where the country is trying to extradite on existing charges there's no indication that that has happened will ever happen i think that the basic problem is it's one thing to say that detainees may face mistreatment when there is no evidence that compels a finding that this individual more likely than not he's a self going to be a detainee there's no evidence your honor of a lack of process in that newspaper article it's just reporting somebody was tried somebody was based on charges there was a trial and sentence was imposed that itself does doesn't trigger anything counsel what about r is the foundation when you say that now you're calling into question you know the off the authenticity of the letters and i and i again i come back to wasn't he the foundation that he received these letters isn't he deemed credible i'm just struggling hundred your honor i don't believe so but there was a general finding that the burden of proof was not met and that would have been swept up in that but on the other hand he would screw it again i'll go back to conceit in fairness i think you can see that it's an on off switch isn't it yes ok i appreciate your argument thank you thank you very much council we've put two minutes back on the clock for thank you very much i'll try to address the last issue first the judge made a positive credible not a partial credible finding a positive fund all these documents to be credible some page thirteen of the judge's written decision i mean oral decision with a letter center duce through your client's testimony identify them that are jennifer the handwriting no they were introducing there was no objection and just documentary evidence insofar as i'm not one news report we provide contras news reports from the new york times which is very credible source these events took place in july first two thousand and fourteen to come back terrorism in that country they passed and they gave the all understand where a member of the international convention so we approach this case with care and and and you have argued that the b i a has misstated facts here about that that may go to its decision about where this person was tortured in the past and is is is is eligible for deferral i'm not clear about exactly what relief you want are you asking us to remain so that they consider these facts and get the story correct and make a new determination or what are you asking three things our number one he's been living in this country since ninety eight he is a good citizen a good individual his u s born children he had a father a writ of mandamus to get on i won thirty approved law and the facts but misapplied the law primarily in the situation by not following the law and very different relief are you seeking so i'm seeking that he as a victim he was in fact a son tortured by the government