brothers attacked this wife tried to kill his father and successfully assassinated his uncle the government said he's no longer in danger because in two thousand and three a report showed that the i quote a tribe controls a part of the country that is one hundred and ninety square kilometers which is approximately one hundred and eighteen miles the problem in the past persecution occurred outside of this area that the ac after the st attack against them mr i don't fled the quanta and never returned clean that area did not stop the five year campaign of violence against him and his family the tribe traveled two hundred and twenty seven miles from the quanta to akra to beat him up attack his wife and try to kill mr i do and i don't and his family the tribe sent text messages well founded fear with a citation to the general country condition report and this court held that the general report was insufficient because a quote fails to address the m's particular circumstances and quote live anywhere and got his wife children brothers have fled the country he cannot recently live without his family and the p a also irit and conditioning his safety and surrendering his claim to be chief of the before you reserve so just looking at the record it seems like the threats and attacks against mr out o have occurred in a discreet part of donna and what what is the record say about i mean it seems like the majority of the country is outside of this bribed and they they ended the criminal proceedings that happened inside of that area two hundred miles away is aqua acra is the capital it's a busy urban diverse area it is outside of that area and over two hundred miles city that's well two hundred miles away from holland i understand that but doesn't directly state that it's got sort of us it's another stronghold of his the authority of tribal members control any other side outside of that area is presumably not controlled by any tribe and he wasn't safe there and i'm i so i'm not saying he's controlling it my question is it i thought the record d was that you have the one area d where there is control and then in the capital city which is admittedly diverse it's it's sort of the nd stronghold his competing has i understand is another place in the country that has a substantial number of members of the dr as i understand from the record in addition to his  homeland your honor and his credible testimony said that the tribe members are everywhere including at the airports so there is no ship and that's it i think this question is a poor and because the government has not shown that the tribe is actually limited to any part of the country there is free movement in that country where they can locate him anywhere and under m z m r for an applicant to internally relocate safely there must be an area of the country where the government can show that he has no well founded fear of persecution the government has not a dentist by any part of gonna where the tribe won't be that what they've done if they said because they control this one area there must be an inference that they don't have any control  the rest of the country but that is just that is frequently refuted by the fact that they went and track them down general miles and acra they tracked him down he moved with an acura and they sent him a text message that i change the i found credible that said we will hunt you down wherever you go right ok just so i'm sure that i understand your position what is the legal basis for personal isn't lack of substantial evidence of said a mess social security work can find any comparable job he's not allowed to be heir to the chief that is not needed and that makes it a reasonable as a relocation and that is that it is still on the table though i thought i thought he renounced his ability to be the chief well again your hon it in order to be safe and his father said yes you should renounce it as much as this is part of our family because i can't keep you safe and you will not be safe but again that shows if if the only way for him to be safe  renounce his it's claim that's not true safety and we would see that clearly if it were a matter religion like if you can go back your country songs you never pray again we would recognize that as as a clear air that that's not true granted  persecuted for five years as they perceived him to still be in line in succession so be a threat to them and to their power so he can't he can't undo he can't unring the bell he cannot disassociate himself from their localized crime could end up having some presence or some infiltration into such a large capital city i believe the record shows your honor that the population of gun as a whole is very sleepy put around twenty seven and a half to twenty and a half one million it says that opera opera but there's different in present anything to show that there was infiltration anywhere else it's a little bit like that isn't the policy isn't that a policy what you're signing as the only place that he can be endured is a place where the rival tried way but all it takes is one member of the rival tribe to injure one of words who's not being pursued because he happens to be an us certain place he's being pursued because of who he  you're right i think what internally location is getting at though is whether the persecutors has sweeping sway throughout the country so you can imagine a different situation where the persecutors are say the national government that governs the country writ large you can imagine it being a harder case to be located if the government kind of has an honor presence everywhere well the agency was saying here however is that this is a he faces past persecution speech past persecution that the question is you've got some facts here you've got facts that even in a place couple one hundred miles from where they hold sway they pursued him with with some vigor and then you say but there's no reason to think that they wouldn't go elsewhere i think that's that's not a very convincing argument there you relocated only neighborhoods in our you know his he testified that this trial is not so powerful that it controls the entirety of the country that's quite sensible and reasonable given how small the tribe is relative to  the agency contends and that it compounded during the hearings that mr otto would be so if you were somewhere other than those two locations on the arrival tribe know his exact address at those other place the same risk and that's because there's a distance apart commitment to find him can only reason least be be thought to spend so far so moving somewhere somewhere far away from these two areas in one of the many other areas in g he said he could move far away certainly the united states is far away how much further away from his homeland you'd be country then  here on i think the nature of it the colloquy we're kind of having here i think does underscore that this is a factual question is a substantial evidence question and agency really did look at haiti you know internal relocation how do you show it you show what you can show here the localized nature of the persecution to localize nature of the violence it's really about a piece of land and that the the limited numbers of potential pers try to understand the test better what the government have to show that it would be unreasonable for him to believe that he's unsafe everywhere in the country i i believe it's objective your honor because it's we're talking about a rebuttal of a well founded fear of future persecution which itself is about to end i think so i think it's about what in the country in fact you can say as a one you know he would have a well founded fear based on past persecution but the chances of persecution everywhere in the country are so proved that he could live without being pursued in guyana as opposed to finding that there was no evidence that they were going to pursue him you are right on the birth of your honor i would say two things i say  away from her initial persecution for a year in safety without any harm coming to her in this record we do not have that situation he fled as soon as the bullet went through his bedroom nearly killing him and here we have gonna be in the size of the state of michigan the tribes down to two hundred miles away from the st incidents where they tried to harm him and unlike any other case we have credible evidence of a text where the tribe members said we will hunt you down and they followed through on that text by locating him in accra and within africa when he also let me let me ask you one thing so we have sort of a non exhaustive list of factors from that the own case about when someone might reasonably relocate within a country and in this case it seemed to me that the b i a basically acknowledged those factors and said that and it would be reasonable but didn't really have any individualized discussion most of them is  enough for the b i hate to just say look i'm aware of these factors and i'm considering them or is it your position that they have to have a more in depth analysis of how the factors work you're right or that the regulations that articulated themselves say that some might not be relevant to the case at hand at all that the agency doesn't have to consider all of them doesn't have to apply all of them but they have to consider what is relevant and what what the test is a is it can he safely relocate and that reason for him to do so the agency skipped over that safely and the evidence is showing that he there is no one location where he can safely relocate the court need not create if it does then it can deal with those other factors they said you know he can find a job anywhere because he's healthy against that is the family situation which is which is what the other cases have found to be very compelling ones and the cheap  but again on safety alone this record has uncontested facts and he's not safe anywhere in the country let me follow up on the reasonable moves and if you're but in those two factors together would be and not well let's put it this way to go with the government have to rebut the the proposition that he could reasonably fear and did recently fear being persecuted anywhere in the country in other words is there a subjective component to the question of danger everywhere in the country maybe we would say yeah he's probably safe and some places in the country but after the texts and everything that happened to him he would say i recently fear that i can't be safe in em is an interesting case because there in the end they provided expert evidence of v h s had expert evidence showing that there at the man could reasonably safely relocate to another part of the country the th circuit nonetheless reverse no showing that he's safe anywhere in the country thank you thank you counsel cases submitted counselor excused