may please the court my name is michael sawka i represent miss tovar in this matter i'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal i please be informed that the time shown on the clock is your total remaining time thank you so in this case mexican national who fled mexico after suffering repeated year or years of repeated abuse from her brother that abuse was sexual physical emotional and psychological she attempted in fact her brother attempted to if you can focus because you don't have a lot of time it's the persecution on account yes so could you focus on that for me so the board does not really go into any analysis in that aside from saying that they agree that there was no clear on the immigration judges part  and then they noticed that wretch personal retribution is not a valid basis for asylum however in the immigration judge's decision he only notes specifically as dispositive that apparently the brother suffers from psychological disturbances well even if that is a factor to be considered under the standard it has to be a central reason and what's the protect that ground that's i guess that's what i'm struggling with what is the protecting ground that anchors the refugee status would be her familial relationship to her brother so being his sister one of the positive groups was sisters of her here which over and in this situation had it not been for that family may be politically persecuted and there they can show that the government wouldn't you know protect them and then that can qualify but here i don't see any you know political connection or notoriety that would make this family a target or something like that that i'm missing so the no your honor the issue would be what was the motive of the persecutor and so the persecutor being her brother was targeting her because he she was his sister he mentioned multiple times that you know she's a whore none of the other siblings of the other sisters are that would make a refugee anybody who's a crime victim at the hands of a family member no no so the reason why he was targeting her specifically was because she was his sister there's no evidence in the record that he targeted anyone else for any other reason he mentioned specifically she was a whore he did not respect her the other he said specifically that his other sisters did not mean that means that to follow up on what just christian observed that means that any time one family member is targeted by another family member that would be grounds for asylum i think that would be the case if that was the motive of the persecutor so just because someone is targeted for a reason or a factor but in this case it was a central reason because had it not been for her being his sister he would not have had this but do you have a case that you can cite to us where asylum has been granted on the basis of one family member attacking a different family member i don't your honor but i do know in faruq the court held that whether the violence is issued by or is done by a family man or stranger a third party it doesn't matter does not negate the actual if this is done for a political reason for instance if two family members were members of different political parties and want to tax the other because of the political beliefs i think that would be closer to what you are going but i'm just adrift in terms of finding some precedent that allows for inter family  what is in the record that tells us that had she reported this to the police and followed through with the police that she would not have been protected so moving to be willing and able to to protect in the rights and sometimes that is triggered because the family is notorious or politically powerful are getting back to draw instant point is there something like that here where where where the record shows that your claim could not have received been protected by the local government so as this court held recently in regarding specifically the local government i didn't mean to limit it to local government just so there is ample country as reports in the record actually that talk specifically about the pervasive issue of domestic violence and the lack relationship as hearses his sister that lisa was so they did come in but as she noted she did not follow through with the report because one her father pleaded with her not to do it and throughout her testimony she talks about the importance of family the other noting the other point she makes is she felt shame throughout her even when there her sister who had viewed some of the incidents wanted to tell the other siblings what had happened she said no specifically because she was shameful and she even didn't want to talk about herself like much about the incident herself out of shame so while the police may have come that does not necessarily prove that action would have taken the stand it also had to be unwilling and or sorry unwilling or unable while they might have been responding that day the country reports show that it's clearly a very minor offense in one of the commission's report it notes that domestic violence is only considered a significant offense if there are injuries that will last more than fifteen days if it's not more than fifteen days it is considered a minor offense and those incidences usually the  ee is released within hours or days another one of the commission reports note that the victims oftentimes have to serve the abusers with notice that they've made this complaint thereby notifying their exact abusers of what's happening and putting them in for the risk which would show at least that it's an if not futile that it would subject them to further harm but that's my time so i reserve the right rebel all right thank you thank you we'll hear from the government damiano on behalf of the attorney general good morning to you all in this case there are three issues before the court but i'll focus on the nexus issue since that's where we spent the bulk of the time with petitioners argument in this case the board found no clear error in the judge's determination that the motive here was that mr of ours brother sergio had psychological disturbances exacerbated by his drug addiction his alcoholism and the board again found no clear error and agreed that that was not sufficient the drug and alcohol addiction combined with his psychological disturbances was not sufficient sufficient to draw a nexus between the harm a protective ground now the testimony itself and the words of mr of our support that determination and mist of our must show that the evidence compels the contrary result here we have testimony at least twice that mr barr said that he she believes he abused her or mistreated her because he's a drug addict and an alcoholic on page one eighteen and one forty one of the records she repeats that she says he abused me or he mistreated me i believe because he has alcohol and drug problems or he's an addict in her application her asylum application on page one fifty eight of the record she said i believe the harm and mistreatment has occurred because of his alcohol and drug problem she said this again in her statement that she filed with her asylum application and many times during the testimony she was asked and she repeated this sentiment so the motive even in the words of mr of are was that he was a disturbed person and he had these alcohol and drug problems that started when he was eighteen years old and that's when the abuse the verbal abuse and physical abuse started according to mr of our and even on page seven of the opening brief petition  the actual physical and verbal abuse started after he began abusing drugs and alcohol so what what significance if any should we apply to the intervening case of bras  and what we're arguing is that remained is not necessary because in this case there was no connection between the harm and the expected ground this isn't the oco him apart from just to dissect that if i could there's the there's a there's the question of a quantum of nexus and then there's nexus to the social group the protected social group and the problem i've got to just differentiate is the social group i mean i only hear opposing counsel to talking about a familial connection that she's being the on account of his on account of not a political connection or political belief but sister ok so petitioner before the agency advanced and i think billy i believe it's in the the briefs as well three opposed social groups family members of the tovar family sisters of sergio tovar vasquez and mexican women who have abusive siblings was the third group and if we just take a step back ms tovar was the only person ever to have suffered any harm from sergio there's no indication from ms tovar or from any evidence in the record that he was motivated to harm her because she was a member of any group whatsoever we know he never harmed any of his other family members we know he never harmed any of his other sisters which there are seven seven other sisters and three brothers is it significant though that she was the only sister as i understand the record with the boyfriend well there's actually there is an instance where he she said that she had a boyfriend and that he made these of verbal abuse of comments but there's also i mean petitioners argue that she was the only single sister but that's actually not true if you look at page one twenty one of the record mr of are testify that there was another sister living at the house with her and her brother for a period of time while the other sisters were married this is this occurred over an eighteen year period she's in her forty's now she came to the united states at age forty and the abuse started aged twenty two or twenty three so at some time there was another sister living in the house it's unclear as to how long but the point is that he has to have been motivated by her membership in a particular social group he was motivated to harm her there's no doubt the behavior is  he obviously had some inexplicable and longstanding problem with his sister but was he motivated to do it because she was a member of any group he certainly wasn't motivated to harm her because she was the member of her family because he never directed any i or any other members of the family or any other sisters if this were if group membership were the motivation behind his abuse he would expect to see some other evidence that he showed some animosity towards that group here we have a situation a very unfortunate situation of personal retribution which is not sufficient to show the nexus on account of a particular social where is your argument a failure on nexus or a failure to show membership in a particular social group it's nexus the board did not the board did not specifically address the particular social groups themselves but the i j a did specifically found that she had failed to establish membership that's true but the board decided these the silent withholding claims on the dispositive it because it says me dispositive issue of nexus alone so we're only looking at that issue here before this court in terms of asylum and withholding the point again is that she has to show before this court that the record evidence compels a contrary result to the agency's result and the evidence actually says so upright where she hasn't shown a prime official case if if we find that the board applied the wrong next a standard but she is not even put on the board a prime aphasia case so that remain would be futile i hesitate to remain and write and that's want to speak to that well that's what several of that's what i mean we would argue that remained is unnecessary because it would be futile because under both the one reason the one central reason and an a reason standard she would not be able to show that this harm occurred on account of a protected ground in this case membership in any of these three proposed social groups but this this court has issued several unpublished decisions where they the court has said exactly that it remained isn't necessary because it would be futile because that there has been no reason  harm has not occurred on account of any reason that connects it to a social group the difficulty and since you're not going to chance to get back up again when opposing counsel gets up he will surely remind us that we're only reviewing him and we have black letter law that we review on the basis of the board and so what you've done i think is framed your next argument so that it encompasses the social group problem because there isn't one central reason well there's no reason i mean there's i right but you said i'm saying that the board relied on nexus you framed your argument to rely on nexus and the reason you've done that is not a concession that there was a protected social group the reason you've done that is because the board a lot of nexus and we have case i think we'll we review what the board relied on that's correct ok thank right  with regard to just because i have i don't have much more time i just wanted to touch on the convention against torture claim and under that that claim the board denied relief because threats and said that he would find her or that he would be able to get out of police custody things that he said in a drunken drug induced rage to her during one of these instances but there are even ms tovar herself said that she didn't know to what extent it was true that her brother had any contacts with anyone and also again taking a step back mist of our didn't report this abuse to anyone for years and years and years except her parents who were in the house with her they  this had occurred but it wasn't until she called the police at the very end in february of two thousand and eleven they responded to her they came out to take a police report and then she declined to press charges that the government in this case showed they were willing to take action and that evidence should trump the generalized country conditions of events which shows yes mexico does have a problem in you know taking down reports and prosecuting at times sometimes women who are devic timbs of domestic violence don't want to come forward but in this case she did come forward and they should responded and it was her choice not to go forward also she's an extensive network of family seven sisters two brothers nieces and nephews she's college educated she went to cosmetology school as well and she's she's in her forty's so just drawing the difference between other cases and showing that the evidence doesn't compel the conclusion that she couldn't relocate and that the government when the protector i'm almost out of time here over your time thank you yes thank you for bottle thank you and to dress a couple of the points that my opposing counsel mention specifically regarding that she was the only sister harmed while i think that that is a factor to be taken to account i don't think it's dispositive in any way there's analogous situation would be if a particular religion was persecuted in a country there's no requirement that all people of that religion are persecuted for that to be considered a significant or a sufficient factor to be a particular social group in fact  advocating a particular social group of one no it's a member of the the sisters of that family it would be a total of eight seven including her but how do we get there if she's the only one that was persecuted because the persecutors motive was to harm or due to that it was his sister who in his mind is a whore he specifically mention she the other sisters are not whores it is only him those psychological disturbances well that also might have played a factor it does not take away from the one central reason being his sister had been psychological disturbances that made him violent for example in the incident where he was strangling her and four people were necessary needed to take him off of her  he would have targeted anybody that was at that event but it was an entire family event and he singled out mr over throughout all of these years he never once singled anybody out it was always her it was a paul wheeze because she was his sister and was a  i don't love you so he's not saying there's not that biological relationship it's more because he things as a whore and as a sister she's not worthy of being family as but throughout her clear that had it not been for her being a whore and his sister there would have no problems there is no evidence to say and she even mentioned that there was no harm to any other person so any other one that a person that might have met his reason for being a whore was not a family member and so was not subject to any harm but burning his sister made that a personal connection to him and what made it her a target for his abuse apologized i'm almost out of time but i would notice  as you also mention for withholding purposes there is only one or that it's a reason not a central reason and so even if it's not found to be a central reason for asylum purposes we would say that his or her familiar a should does show that it was a reason and does require a separate