good morning if it please the court my name is peter hurtado on behalf of jose or none that's more or less this is an immigration case this is a case about whether the petitioner has met his burden of proof to show that he has an objective fear of future persecution on account on account of a protected ground under the i n e our reading of the decision is that the board of immigration appeals did not specifically rule on the viability of the particular social group they didn't deny that were affirmed that rather they simply seem to question whether the petitioner sphere was sufficiently corroborated by evidence or with objective le reasonable given the circumstances and timing so assuming for the moment that the social group or protective ground was ruled on and we should assume that for your purposes now they are tell us about the fear ok so the petitioner was in the mexican military and it was in the information unit he investigated illegal drug activity he did this until two thousand and six he then got out of the military because he was partly because he was afraid of what may happen to him by drug trafficking group he then spent three more years in mexico and then he came to the united states and he fears that he would be targeted by these group by one particular group because of his activity in the past persecution no so we didn't argue past persecution because he was never contacted by the group he was never threatened he did testify to a colleague who had been disappeared or had had it was in a similar situation he did present a letter from his partner regarding a that they had been coming by we're we're left with just a withholding of removal application so the question is simply if his fear he has are well founded partly are clear probability of future harm at the hands of this group we're not arguing past persecution so we feel that his his fear is was number one he testified credibly regarding the fact that he's afraid his credibility was not questioned there's no credibility determination so the court should  although the court is not i know there's a recent case regarding credibility he the agency did did not question his credibility he feels that he sufficiently corroborated his claim in the sense that he presented evidence that he certainly was in the military and he did produce a letter from his partner saying that they had asked about him and so he feels we feel that he's sufficiently  and does that make any difference to your clan of course is no longer the military correct so the social group is not current members of the military its former members and i believe even interested here in social groups i'm interested in danger was was was  person in the military in a different situation in terms of danger compared to the longer you're right it's not clear from the testimony i'm actually looking at the testimony and it just says he was with me in the army i can only presume that means he is a former member of the military and had the trouble after he got out of the military but i'm not i'm not sure about that so of course the government may point to the fact that this is all happened thirteen years ago this is he left the military in two thousand  the government may also point to the fact that he could certainly request as a veteran as a former law enforcement type of job that he could certainly request assistance when he gets back it's our position that the country conditions are such that there's corruption at that level there is infiltration by these drug trafficking groups such that he can't expect to get the assistance of the government when he gets back to mexico is there any proof of government acquiescence you know what happened to a fellow military for you know there's no proof of what happened to his friend other than his credible testimony and he says he's disappeared correct we don't have a death certificate we don't have he didn't present any kind of letter from a relative of that person just his testimony saying he was disappeared we don't know exactly what happened or even exactly when it happened so and again so that we do recognize that the petitioner has the burden of proof to show that this is objective  reasonable not just that he has a subjective fear and this is common in a lot of immigration cases where there's just not a lot of evidence it's typical not to have a threatening letter or anything like that and so we feel that here he produced what the court required which is reasonably available evidence he produced evidence that he was in the military so there's no question about that and he produced a letter from his partner saying that they were they were there was some still what we would characterize that as a continued interest in him to reserve them i would like to reserve the rest of the time for rebuttal thank you thank good morning may it please the court my name is sharon clay and i'm with the government contention is that petitioner has not presented any evidence that would compel the conclusion that he has a well founded fear of future persecution at the hands of his described trafficking group hard to live on account of his former military status or his imputed political opinion pino was actually in the military at the time so he's not actually a former military personnel the letter from his partner speculates about the deaths of the other servicemen as well and only asserts that the people looking for years looking for her partner are just seeking to find out some information petitioner has not established an objectively reasonable fear of persecution he has not been singled out for persecution he has not been individually targeted for persecution  he has never been harmed he's never been threatened he's never been approached by any drug traffickers as far as we know from the from the record he has returned to mexico voluntarily multiple times after after arriving in the united states the country port not show that former servicemen are actually targeted for harm they only show evidence of general violence he did not provide any details about the group that he that he fears and his family has been able to remain living in mexico on harm despite her allegations of vengeance against those who refused recruitment tellingly the record also shows that during his interview with the end ration officer he he did not express any fear of returning to mexico at that time  would also argue that he has not established his eligibility based on the imputed political opinion because in order for that for that opinion to to hold there have to be someone who actually impute said on him and based on  are harmed because of their refusal to be recruited but it doesn't suggest that their target is the former middle to former military service men and that said  this particular decision because while they engage in this analysis based on asylum the fact that they didn't point or find any reason or any protective around doesn't alter the the burden on the withholding every move a claim so the central reason is not really applied here and lastly what i would say about the cat claim is that the cat claim fails simply because so she has not presented any evidence that he personally would be targeted for torture if you look at the record the torture there is evidence of torture but what you also find about evidence of torture is that it was likely perpetrated against persons that the security forces thought were criminals and he has not established or alleged that he thought he would find himself arrested or approached by the police officers and as also additional evidence in the record shows that the mexican government has been taking steps to be able to eradicate torture in their country and some of the things that they have done recently is  for misconduct ok thank you time this friend pino that was disappeared there's no evidence in the record who disappeared or why is there only the correct there's no documentary evidence of that there's only the petitioners testimony and it was some speculation that maybe he disappeared as a result of the carto involvement right correct the immigration judge specifically noted that in his oral decision where he said that he the petitioner testified his friend was killed in two thousand and ten and that this friend had served with the with him in the army and he had suspicions that this was done at the hands of drug traffickers and the judge goes on to say but you can see there was speculation he didn't have any evidence it was just based on general talk so and the counsel is correct  he does not know the identity of the actual persecutors here he is the personal identities although he he does identify this one group called the line a criminal group there but there was no evidence submitted  trial regarding that specific group regarding a few of counsel's points about the continued presence of the family in mexico it would be our position that his  remains objectively reasonable even given the continued family because they are not similarly similarly situated and there's no evidence of any threats towards the family and  regarding the social group again the standard here under barack is that the the it has to be a reason that the proposed group or the political opinion needs to be a reason not the central reason or the only