immigration judge noted that his testimony was detailed possible and consistent with the asylum application and with non country conditions and that he was sincere forthright and truthful ma'am i'm a little hard of hearing could you slow up and i'm sure yes yes you based on those findings the narrative of this case should be analyzed upon mr lopez's undisputed testimony if agree with you on the issue of past persecution do we need to send this back to the i j a on the  both your you're on the the board of immigration appeals was was given the opportunity to review the next element and they chose not to and in particular because past persecution has been so  perhaps your honor that it should be remanded based on not but i do think this court has the ability to to review the record in total to determine that there was event that the government failed to rebut that ev and since two thousand and five this court has repeatedly held that a targeted death threat does constitute persecution as a matter of law for the purposes of meeting the first element of asylum and that the immigration judge and the board of immigration are  driving in his car by men by members of m s thirteen mr lopez in this case testified that the hernandez family which is a large family known for committing murders there and then tried to kill him once to armed members of the hernandez family asked mr lopez if he was going to if you were seeking revenge for his father's death and when when he answered no they still said we're still planning to kill you while they were armed and then a few weeks later they attempt to kill him while they yell at him and shoot directly  lopez's case the maiming of mr lopez's own goal and the murder of mr lopez's father are relevant factors that should have been considered by both the immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals any and friends that the hernandez brothers threats were idle chatter should have been eliminated by the fact that the threatened conduct actually happened to mr lopez's father based on this in a plethora of other decisions by this court the immigration judge in the board of immigration board of immigration appeals committed legal error when finding that mr lopez testified credibly they found review all of the issues when the board of immigration appeals was given those issues and they were in mr lopez's briefs throughout the entire throughout this entire time and i'll go ahead and address the b shifting analysis when the immigration judge in the committed legal error in not finding that mr lopez had established that he suffered from past persecution they also incorrectly as you've noted shifted the burden to mr lopez to show that he could not reasonably relocate to mr lopez was required only to show that there was a reasonable possibility not a likelihood of future persecution because mr lopez was found credible and because it's a reasonable possibility which has been determined to mean as low as a ten percent chance that mr lopez will again be targeted by the hernandez family particularly when they've gone after other male members and his family the immigration judge's decision that mr lopez failed to demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution was manifestly contrary to law that the court should have looked at even if they didn't shift the burden was whether or not the applicant would face other serious harm in the place of suggested relocation any ongoing civil strife within the country administ economic or judicial infrastructure geographical limitations and social and cultural concern it's a cultural constraints mr lopez testified that he did not feel safe and any of the cities he tried to relocate to he was held at knife point multiple times and robbed in one  the country conditions report that was submitted as i wouldn't including the state department's warning show that hundred continues to be unstable that it has one of the highest murder rates in the entire world and criminal activity is extremely prevalent and further the government does not have the resources it needs to punish or prosecute these cases and the judicial system is completely riddled with corruption the immigration judge and board of immigration appeals also incorrectly looked at whether mr lopez's family is premised on threats directed at him personally further the i j a noted that mr lopez's brother was able to see if we relocate however this is contrary to mr lopez's testimony which stated that his brother fears for his safety and can only fearing for his life also mr lopez testified and the i j a a good knowledge that mr lopez may have different problems than the women and his family and although it was and although it's improper for the i j a to require mr lopez to show that internal relocation was not reasonable mr lopez in fact did meet this burden anyway so if the court if it's proper this court could consider that that burden regardless that it should not have been shifted was already met and it's a much higher burden and so it was already met by mr lopez in which case it would sort of be a waste of the court's resources to remand it just sort of a lower burden the second issue before this court today assuming that you do not choose to remain and this is whether or not suffering at least on that account is is whether or not the suffering that mr lopez faced was on account of a particular social group namely his family in th but even even if the board weren't or even if if this court want to find that we mr lopez was targeted specifically on account even if you don't consider what happened to his brother and his other uncle that remain  paralyzed even if you don't consider those factors he was he was persecuted on account of his relationship with his with his father because of the relationship with his father and perhaps the relationship with his uncle the next terminations factual in the you to do is find that the emigration judge who reviewed all of the facts made a factual error and then made a legal error the factual error being based on the fact that he said that the he found two reasons poor mr lopez's persecution one a land dispute and two that the hernandez family sought to to harm mr lopez because of he wanted to they thought he wanted to take revenge for his father's death in the first and since the land dispute issue that's that's no reasonable adjudicator could find that that was that that the determination should have been made there's nowhere in the record that states that mr lopez or any evidence standard that should be looked at not what mr lopez's uncle was fighting about with the hernandez family and this court ruled that in recently actually and i think it's  reason for persecution only has to be one central reason in the the immigration judge specifically says that one of the reasons was that mr lopez the hernandez family was afraid that mr lopez w going to a vet try to avenge his father's death mr lopez would not be trying to avenge his father's death although there is no evidence that he was actually trying to do that but even if there were he wouldn't be trying to avenge his father's up or they wouldn't be worried about if he wasn't related to his father and mr lopez testifies to that that the hernandez family is worried that as the eldest male in his family he might seek jurisdiction to overturn the factual determination that there is absolutely no way a rational fact finder could have found that mr lopez was was in any way in dispute with any type of land issue hernandez family and we also would say that they the immigration judge committed legal error when it explicitly states that one of the reasons was because the hernandez family sought to stop to her harm or kill mr lopez because he might try to seek revenge for his for his father's death this is the relationship to his father that's that is at issue here and that that is similar to hernande where the court held that a mother who threatened was threatened by m s thirteen for not allowing her son to join their gang had suffered past persecution on account of her relationship to her family and it was on account of being the mother of her son while this court found that one reason m s thirteen disputes that the government has not only not person not prosecuting those types of cases the murder for them but they're also very involved and possibly part of the the problem with bill with the industry  endured or that were visited upon him why can't you consider what else happened not in terms of nexus that happened because of his family but that this really is persecution look at what's been happening to this family i mean and this guy got the death threat he was shot at and moreover his father was shot in the head and killed and moreover the uncles were disabled so so while it's not next to strictly speaking it shows that these this  idle threat and shooting at him was not an idle act because in the context of the family relationship nexus it's pretty darn serious i think it's serious and that's actually the line  that they were drunk he didn't think it was that serious the first time the second time he said that to me said ok i believe this is serious now he went to the police but he could remember even if you went to the police the next day or the day after that and then you also really did the balance of the police because they said they were too busy for him at first to come back later  those are induced disha that this wasn't the type of severe harm you ordinarily see in the persecution case i would contrast it with the treatment that his other family members received if you had your arms cut off with a machete that's a whole level is a very arms off or becomes personal it is a line drawing though there has to be look at it this way on the first day when he only had a verbal threat is that persecution doesn't seem like the sort of things we talk about persecution ok the second encounter they shot at him but they've miss ran away and he didn't it was very tough to report to the police until a day later at some point we have to say ok this is below the line of persecution this is above the line of persecution in this case that is a judgment call for the fact finder here and in that case you should question as to what the harm to him was and here the immigration judge in the board looked at this and said the harm to me is just not sufficiently severe enough to constitute persecution and as a result he couldn't demonstrate that he was persecuted in the past that's what that of course brought the board of immigration judge to the next question where they assumed nexus they said ok we assume that they're attacking you because the targeting you because you're a member of your family but you could reasonably internally relocate well you're saying that a petition or safety in their own country petitioner was able to run away he got away and in fact relocated safely with his own country and he didn't like the relocation he didn't like where he went he was making less money because he was a carpenter and then he had to work in a coffee plantation but he was in fact able to avoid the harm that he wanted to avoid finder could have concluded otherwise in other words that he was targeted on account of his family relationship well i think that's another factual question that we conceding that she's saying when the facts are such and they are so great is that as a matter of law of the court is compelled to find it that we can deal with and you know ordinarily we would not do or to dismiss this case so it's not like i could come in and say hey well forget about this forget about this other sponsored issue relocation whatever let's talk about next i couldn't see that's why i don't know that we can do the flip side here where that i'm trying to have to persecution and then also with respect to relocation reasonable relocation i did want to mention they didn't look at the relocation issue if she's ri about persecution then the burden of showing the veil ability of possible relocation shift to the government right and that's not how they looked at it below it is but i'm not sure that because as far as as far as he thinks it does and for all i say that for this reason the burden of proof here is proponents of the evidence which means that where the evidence is an equitable is the party with the burden lose so in a and useless formality if we were to say it's a little harsh if we were to say that the internal relocation finding is supported by substantial evidence there would be no reason to send it back to the board or protect the immigration judge for them to say ok well i have the exact same evidence of internal relocation i still find it reasonable and therefore the government in that case has met its burden it's only when the evidence is an echo of ways that the burden is actually going to make a difference which means remaining in any other circumstance would be futile i think my answer to that question so does the case is there any evidence that this is government sponsored torture work government tolerated torture oh no your honor i did want to i'm glad you brought that up yeah the evidence just doesn't support of torture claim here on either prague the likelihood of torture and then also really not the likelihood of government involvement the one time he did actually go to government for help the police officer help you but you've got to come back tomorrow that's maybe equivocal help but that's enough to say that at least when he actually needed help he was able to at least thought he was able to seek out somebody which as far as the persecution it doesn't say that the harm doesn't have to be severe enough it doesn't say that there has to be a physical injury where here today because the hernandez family did not complete their mission of killing mr just the threat is sufficient for this court to find persecution the court has found in other cases such as a recent case of a lotto versus sessions that that just handwritten notes and a phone call were sufficient when when the petitioner never even came into contact with the gang members that were threatening her that was sufficiently that was a sufficient finding a persecution so the government is using the completely wrong standard which they have repeatedly done and forced asylum applicants to continue to appeal these cases also the government incorrectly states that mr lopez didn't like his relocation options because of  direct examination mr lopez just merely said that he was making less money he didn't say that it was a problem he didn't say that he couldn't afford his his lifestyle he just said he was making less money there's nowhere in the record that states that that's the reason that he decided to move in fact he stated never any problem with hernandez no evidence that there is no evidence of that your honor however mr lopez stated that he was worried that quite a few people from his hometown were traveling to and from those cities and they might tell her nando's family off to him and the hernandez family and that's what he was concerned about and so he was only going to work and going home and that was it and this court has held that hiding not being able to go anywhere and do anything is not sufficient to establish that relocation was reasonable in regards to i just like to know in regards to the question about government related torture for the cot standard wall the government was not the actor in this regard in this case the government was complicit several times throughout mr lopez and his family's persecution they go to the police and the police do nothing for example mr lopez's mother goes to the police when when his when her husband is shot and killed and the police do nothing when goes to the police when he when he and so he has he has if you're just like and as is noted in the country conditions report repeatedly people have a fear to go because of retribution that the government can't control but when  go to the police if i might finish my point your honor my time's up when he does go to the police they tell him well sorry this is an actual emergency and i'm come back later tomorrow and that was on the threat of death of his life