his wife is firmly committed for religious reasons reasons to maintaining the marital union what is at stake for mr and miss the stock market is really a matter of life and death at the current department of state crevel been a long time he's currently in power the the evidence shows he personally knows let me ask you about something else actually with really on my mind it's that eight u a forty eight b that's what's really on my mind in this case it's there's a reference to the term of imprisonment is deemed to include the period of by a court of law regardless of released into a less onerous institution where the person is still not free so i think i understand first of all i would point out that that issue that's not relevant to mr acknowledged claim under the convention against torture no i agree something and your opening seems to be focusing solely on the convention against torture claim because  with respect to the to twelve c claim we are prepared to withdraw that claim the twelve c claim there is i think still a question about whether the eligibility for withholding of removal which is separate from the convention against torture planning and that would require whether or not the crime that he was convicted of would be considered a particularly serious crime and if we find that it was that he's ineligible for that form of risk well that's that's correct if if it's determine withdraw and not pursue ok ok so you want to focus on the half time i do want to also pursue the withholding claimed on the can't claim he's been here for what is it thirty years or something yes a little bit less than thirty years maybe twenty i think in one thousand nine hundred eighty is approximately when he came no matter how much anyone hated him thirty years ago well i mean is it reasonable to think he's going to be appeals have used its discretion in denying that motion to reopen that there's overwhelming evidence in the record that mr arkwright is in danger of being tortured or killed with respect to this gentleman the general mr dostum it's very clear that he was personally knows the family he's a classmate of latif ahmad he personally ordered mr submitted testimony or submitted a declaration into the record specifically noting that time has a history of settling old scores and old scores are still being settled states that there have been weak force of politically motivated or extra judicial killings by the government and its agents the you know the country information provided by the united kingdom give us the excerpt of record so if you can because i had really read this record to thank god it's been a long time not much problem anymore has so if there's something here that really shows there is  the administrative record on pages ninety three and ninety four i think that they i mean basically quoting or close to quoting that with what's in the department of state country reports there continue to be instances in which security unfactual force was permitted extra judicial killings and torture and there were reports of politically motivated or extra judicial killings by government by the government or its agents any geographic limitations other person in afghanistan is that the chief of staff of the army with an enemy of his thirty years ago that's part of it that's not all of it in addition there nd they are also political opponents of mr ahmad and his family evidence in the record i think seventy seven the evidence in the record shows that individuals now arriving in afghanistan who are recognized as educated educated afghans not associated with the taliban are particularly at risk the country reports provided by the united kingdom say that these are prime targets for human rights abuses i can withstand an army and through the taliban out of power and they still have their  this it does not have complete control over the situation there continue to be people who are i mean there are country ports safe there are continue to be extra judicial killing department that the travel advisory also in the administrative record of page ninety one is quite compelling recognizing recognizing again that foreigners in kabul and elsewhere throughout the country  international multinational peacekeeping force in afghanistan  that are basically trying to preserve democracy and the board didn't talk about that at all i mean if you can get to that issue really all we have to know what we're trying to show here is that mr thought has at least presented a  petition because the supreme court decision and doherty says their discretionary and disfigured so you have to show not just that they were and that a case can be made for such the board of immigration appeals recognized that there are changed conditions in afghanistan and so this is really his first shot to show that he is likely to be tortured or persecuted in light of the changed circumstances in afghanistan ahmad instead of worse because we sent the military in and overthrew the government but with none of that is in the record you know think we can take judicial notice of the fact that there's been a change of government in afghanistan well but then  explain that despite the change of government he personally was still at risk yes there's an expert witness who looked at that evidence that in light of the current conditions in afghanistan mr ahmad has has a real reason to fear that he would be for believing that a person would be in danger of being tortured that's a standard that i can be followed what are the pages that i should look at for the most and reopen showing that his personal circumstances distinguish them from the general run of anti communist anti russian people the what the i j a says is his problem was he was anti communist and anti russian and they're gone and and you say that the most you're reopen shows that because of his individual circumstances he was still at high risk of being tortured so i just want to look at exactly what the words are i would point to it in the administrative record pages forty four and presents substantial grounds for believing that there's a danger of torture that's clear there's overwhelming evidence that mr ahmad has met that standard in fact the evidence here leads from it is enough hundred ninth circuit case law to establish that he the application ought to be granted the nuru case a ninth circuit case in two thousand and three like this forty four forty five you're not talking about the u p a report or you know i'm not  the court my name is andy my represent the united states attorney general position has presented three main issues before the court first whether or not there is any right or activity concerns regarding has to establish that there was some sort of arbitrary capricious or you know and what should we look after show that there wasn't your your i would look at the entire record as far as what was previously before the agency as well as what  what any warrior would do and you must assume wow this is the juicy part and put the table on to show me why i mean it's what all the rest of us would do to show me all i have to do is look at theirs and i can see they had a good at the state department reports that as stablish per those pages that there are general problems in afghanistan that they however there are u n peacekeeping forces there that the russians are gone afghans defeated the russians distrust them help from us so those problems are gone but they're still extrajudicial killings and they're still torture and there's no place in the country where there isn't worry about the russians and the communists anymore they're getting him he hasn't been tortured before and the other hand this very powerful man hated him thirty years ago maybe  honor in that in terms of his claims that there is a retroactivity problem there is none not when there isn't even any retroactive effect of his conviction from nine hundred ninety one his conviction for child molestation on it in the second degree on four separate counts would be considered a particularly serious crime even prior to our era such that there wouldn't be a retroactivity concern  retroactivity problem whether it was the court's decision and aragon ion or subsequent decisions here it's not so much a question of whether he has the phrase more likely than our own or in order to establish capital action it is more likely than not or clear probability clear probability has been defined as meaning that he has to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured so he has to prove thank you counsel although you went over time when really i just want to make a follow up on one point there was a discussion about whether or not mr ahmad has to show that it's more likely than not that he would be tortured that's not