please yes once once a time we have great admiration for your excellent dean and we thank you professor here for our bringing you up here a clean start on the time here we use talking here says show that he is gay to others he also openly admires other men as a result if community members know that he is gay consequently the honduran gang perceiving done this is gayness as weakness beat deadness over fifty times while subjecting him to homophobic slurs such as we will make you a man and this statement we will make you a man is based off an unfortunate central american believe the beating a gay man will turn him straight now we're here on a substantial evidence standard a review in the immigration judge on the first claim felt that there was a revenge motive for the sexual assault and in on the beating claim that there was more of an economic motivation than a anti gay animus motivation given our standard of review what would we do about that well first your honor we're arguing that this court should review that  case under the do no standard of review because there are issues of law as to dennis's on account of claim and his cat claim but even under the substantial evidence standard of review the record compels the conclusion that anyway i will find it but he seemed to contradict himself and i guess my question is how are we supposed to construe this it is they are to all nine while he said he was incredible he said well let me be blunt and say i say why i should be and say to others tell me why i should believe you so we got it i j saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time under our case law what do we do with  that i'm not sure of the overall determination was that dennis was credible and this was a finding that was undisturbed by the cia as well and so i think that we should pay great deference to that finding oh i think the i g f point in that case the persecutor clear made clear references to the victim's sexual orientation during an extortion activity while he was beating him in the court found that the beatings coupled with the statements were sufficient to show that he was beat on account of a protected status and that's exactly what we're asking the court to find here as well and therefore there there is substantial evidence that dennis was beaten on account of his sexual orientation by the games like no primarily to the w a different deal and he's not a government official well how do we get into that well there's their record composite conclusion that the government will likely acquiesce in the torture of dennis or stick or turn a blind eye often complicit he pays them off he who denys himself has bore witness to at least five occasions where all throughout honduras even up until up until the border where that that there's not a that honduras does have a sufficient track record now that they protect gays and so that there's not a presumption that your client would be unsafe returning to the country i'm our highly important when evaluating claims of future persecution and i also think that applies to future torture but as to the claims specific to julio julio has already murdered dentist his cousin maria he has told us this family members that does not need to be a protected ground at issue you only i'm wondering though if we must stress that any homosexual would be persecuted to have the problems that your client had as opposed otherwise he wouldn't contract to be ates with your petition or he's angry you can track it aids he wants revenge you're saying that there's a showing that the government with acquiesce in any such torture or murder or whatever it may be what evidence do you cite for that and in these kinds of circumstances where you have to homosexual men one infects the other with h i b you're claiming that government would acquiesce in the ones if you will anger the response to being infected with aids by hiv and that that would be a nexus to go conduct yes so for the cat claim it's there is evidence that with regards to who has cousins murdered maria's murder and the two incidents where julio and his gang confronted dennis his family in person and beat them those police reports were largely uninvestigated and dennis is sisters declaration speaks to the fact that any report that the family will file with the police will remain largely ignored by honduran law enforcement and this is only compounded by the corrupt relationship that julio already has with honduran law enforcement which will more likely than not cause them to acquiesce in any future torture and any future persecution of dennett's if this is this law enforcement  would and that and that same would be based on the country report or what testimony would you would you point us to dennis credibly testifies that the police would recognize him because he traveled with julio said he believed the petitioner the petitioner alleged a mixed motives attack if you will and under our case that is sufficient to establish a protected ground claim that puts the burden on the government to come back and show by some very strong evidence that that is wrong i don't see any evidence in this case from the government refuting that presumption or is it in the record it's in the record with respect to petitioner talking about why the gangs were after him and why the gangs focused on any of the things that were done were based upon a protected ground that that is sufficient to meet the requirement as far as the initial showing by the petitioner well you are the board doesn't use the term mixed motive and video almost identical facts is a philippine man they wanted money but they also were impugning his sexuality and the court found that was enough to establish mixed motives at least at the same thing do appreciate any anything you can show me that shows that that case law has been overruled but if it hasn't been overruled then in the fact that the petitioner has a stablished under our case law that he was tortured he was in the past to be fifty times if i recall correctly was beaten up fifty times before he said the i g credited that the presumption then is that he will be tortured in the future  or beaten up or whatever you want to khalid what evidence did the government produce to refute that well i don't know that which we're talking about torture or we're talking about persecution of ok let's say persecution that's probably a better term so we're taking away from the cat  legislate persecution with respect to persecution i would point to the court the immigration judges focus at page two fourteen of the records not his decision was discussion of the case and i think what we have here is we have the central reason test we do in fact as vice you're going to leave out this case is essentially about the substantial evidence test and whether the record compels the conclusion that is sexual orientation was the motive behind the gangs but again counsel with respect you're not paying attention to our case law we're ninth circuit judges we have to follow our is enough so central mony that that's all fine but once it's been established as it appears to have been here then the burden shifts to the government to show why the presumption doesn't follow through and i'm asking you what specific evidence did the government produce to show that the presumption is overcome well point back to page two of seven the record where the  immigration judges ask them where the gangs focused on you and he says because his family has a supermarket and because he's a person he wouldn't fight back he says he's weak i would fight back and they were judging page two fourteen i think this was gets to the heart of the substantial evidence test he talks about it being a close question with respect to these cases and how do we ferret out what is the motive here what is the overriding motive what's the central motive what concern is what's motive that is going on is driving these individuals and consulate with respect i don't think you're familiar with our two cases because you just talk in circles it's not necessary that there be an overriding motive if there is a mixed mode even the word partially can i would much as just give it out there there's no question that in part they were looking for money granted but they also attacked this young man based upon his sexuality under our case law that's all we got to do then the presumption is that there will be future persecution and the government has to refute talks about what was the reason behind the gang's interest in this individual and at page two fourteen the immigration judge says and you asked the court as well as what was the evidence that was presented below to fourteen the immigration just as the issue of whether the gangs  persecute you is difficult to ferret out the immigration to the judge as the criminals are after money and the petitioners write that they look for people who do not resist and then just goes on to say that it doesn't appear that they seek you have because your homosexuality your homosexuals your homosexuality is failure to communicate you and i are communicating if you just talk in circles as far as i'm concerned you're not responding to the cases you're not responding to the evidence you're saying to me basically if you're if you're evidence is that the i just said what you just  on to fourteen is at the end of it that's all the evidence there is that's the evidence the immigration judge pointed to as well as the eyes he's ok i hear the court loud and clear with respect to the reference to the two cases in the mix motive and i think what we've said in our brief and what i'm saying here is what drove judge to look at this case and he said it was a difficult case to ferret out the immigration judge is aware that there's a mixed motives going on the immigration judge office says it's risky on honduras to be a homosexual but at the end of the day and given the court's standard to review the immigration judge looked at the evidence and said what's animating the individuals and what's driving the gangs was the economic reason but you're suggesting by that that there you can look at mixed mode even say ok we're going to take all these motives are going to still into one and if the one is economic then that's cool well that with the in this particular case i'm saying that video and i'll lead on say that they say if there's mixed motives and one of the motives is based on violence against the immigration judge with said would speck to the gangs motive with respect to these individuals now under the two now leave that doesn't meet the presumption as the court has laid out with respect to buy did not leak that's different question the court asked what was the evidence and i pointed the court to that what is the evidence that's the evidence i point to the immigration judges decision and immigration judges review the evidence of page two fourteen as well as the board of immigration appeals decision i see my time is about down to eight seconds so if there's any other questions  you counsel do you know you have a little rebuttal time do you want to use it oh that's right we've got to look at ok so first as to the government's claim that this is mere extortion economic harm this is completely inaccurate based on the record the motive from the first day was based on dennis's sexual orientation they explicitly stated every single time he passed from day one they referenced his sexual orientation and i don't see a lot of it under our case law i don't think is any question is there that they also wanted money right so yes they want money but they also make sexual orientation slurs under our case law is that sufficient to establish a violation of his protected status if you will yes it is your honor because it's a mixed motives standard and the central reason need not be the only reason or the most important reason for the persecution and in this case it is it pretty vital reason considering the fact that the hunter and gang explicitly refer to his eye for an taishan every single time there's nothing in our case law is there that requires an immigration judge to say well here are these mixed motives i'm going to weigh them and decide what was the predominant motive and pick analysis this is a at least central reason analysis and under the mixed motive standard the motive of his sexual orientation is sufficient to meet that standard this is more than an aside based on the persecution standard your honor and as to nexus is not a more likely than not standard it is just needs to compel the conclusion in the city at least one central reason that he was persecuted on account of his sexual orientation if i may say connection with the police and the fact that he's collaborating with the police and per cole at page seven seventy there's no need for nexus on the basis of his sexual orientation with respect to torture the horrible motive over benj is sufficient to meet th sure you're both going to do a great job we're delighted to have you here i'm sure the government agrees done a fine job so thank you all and to come back in time