our final case for today which appears to be at the stroke of noon is against sessions judge seems willing to give mr azure couped i have the benefit of the doubt on political opinion and social groups which are defined quite similarly and even the benefit of the doubt on whether the even the social group with the political opinion so so why is that wrong and why is that so wrong that we have to override what the immigration judge concluded pro car i believe that is incorrect based on i don't believe that the judge gave enough weight to those to those facts i think you may have misinterpreted the flexor or put a false assumption in there about what actually happened the judge said define and a social group as you know persons associated with the family had been president u ntil the coup in april two thousand and ten and the applicant had been a had a sad associations with that family going back to his childhood he grew up in an area he grew up it was neighbors with bu nephews good business dealings with the family and in fact when the coup was occurring he had been asked to simply to go to a nightclub to take over the operations there as he was definitely involved with that family at that point he may have not been involved politically with that family the later if he did  not that it's in the middle being used by one group but that he's part actually part of one clan and targeted for that and that that's correct on and i and i agree with that and i think in this case he does fall into a group and that group would be as the immigration judge himself called it the persons associated with the book i have family and i believe the prosecution when they invited him for is  be interviewed in may of two thousand and ten and may twenty fifth two thousand and ten knew about that they knew about his associations with and this is where i think the immigration judge got it rog they knew about associations with the buckeye family they had  obviously been following him around they knew something about his what was happening when he was out in april of two thousand and ten when the coup was happening and they thought they infact they've accused him directly of helping the coyote escape escaped the country after the coup so he was was to give false testimony against but i and that he was to write up a false statement or somebody else actually write it up and that he would have to sign it and then this is all politically motivated this is right after a coup and he had direct connections with this family well there are allegations that have spread committed financial crimes and the like that the new new regime is is pursuing right that that he may have been he may not have been the but the fault the fact is that he was being asked to give false test we wasn't asked to give testimony of me ask you false testimony against but i so they must not have had the evidence either ask him to lie here if you say do so so it's sort of just saying ok if they put a bag around his head they beat him up he got  trauma to the skull he lost consciousness most of the head he was hospitalized had to go to treatment for some time after that but that doesn't strike me as being treated as a person who just simply once who has information he's not being treated as a person who has information is being treated as a person who is being forced to give testimonies of specifically false testimony regarding a political figure who was just ousted or recoup he was also accused of helping this person leave the country illegally so i think that goes way beyond the  does fall into this the social group which the judge believed was cognizable persons associate with what kind of family the judge found that he didn't because it also included his that he needed have some political view that the prosecutors didn't mention his political views i don't think that's relevant that's his political views this is pin being a member of this particular group of people who have a long association with a coyote and that's all that he struck me as absurd if he if the requirement is that while people are beating you they have to say and i'm doing this because of your association with the because it doesn't strike me as terribly realistic and that's why we feel that the judge errors and the third the evidence as it is which he was found credible is substantial enough to lead to another conclusion the judge judge made an assumption about that he under stated what actually happened there in the reasons he was there he was if there is a witness or had information is being specifically asked lie about his associations with the car you have to get information so they could use that him to provide testimony and the judge had mentioned at some point that he had actually testified that he would have actually been prosecuted there was a criminal case against him and the judge noted that we really don't know what that's for he was probably it may be a legitimate case because he's not giving information walked the whole point is he was having ask you false information not information that's not the point he was never asked give information is out to get false information to testify to to prove to signing statements that he never wrote and wouldn't even know the content of it because of that he was beat up very forcefully and and threatened and this did go on from for some of the time they did not leave him alone eventually left the country it was the only he was beat but the message was very clear at that point what they want so we feel that based on those facts as as they are that the judge erred in finding that he did not fall within that social group and we would think the focus is on the social group because if he charges against a political figure who he supports why yes is that enough to create and nexus between his prosecution and his political beliefs well if he didn't show that in the beating was one central reason for his persecution or that his what i just wanted to have then there's just a there's been a coup it's th topic that they're looking at is information about the loser in the coup it's hard to see you know looking at the record as a whole that there's any other topic and i can't believe the government is arguing for a standard under which no one gets to show a nexus unless the persecutor you know the announces that that's what he's doing at the time he's persecuting well there's evidence that that that it's they weren't just beating him for that reason and they were beating him or the mistreatment was an account of the information he had about the financial dealings of mega com i mean it's all thing this is you know it's family owned so to speak so it seems to me it's very artificial to regard these as separate topics if it's financial crimes that the mega come into coyotes allegedly committed it's all part and parcel of the same you're going to persecute somebody who's in the social group associated with that because i have clan but he hasn't shown that there was one central reason for his harm how data show that i can't even imagine what what you have in mind is the way to show that that the harm that he suffered the persecution that he suffered was on account of well  it's the nexus right there we're focused right and he's got a lot of evidence to show that until the coup you know he's merrily chugging along working for mega com or whatever then there's the coup they drag  because they're trying to show financial crimes have been committed by the president and his sons and his nephews and all the other people who are placed here and there around for all i know you know maybe there was a reason to do that but hard to know that there's a reason when somebody won't sign a false affidavit or a plastic bag in their head and make them think you're going to suffocate them and then beat them so hard that they lose consciousness and have to be hospitalized well said i mean to respond to or is no evidence that this was the reason that he was interrogated mistreated by officials from the prosecutor's office as mentioned super there was no mention of the respondents views when he was interrogated and so i just have this image g said overcomer punish him for his his relationship with the bike family but how do we know that i mean other than just saying that what reason is there to think that all of this evidence about the association had to be set he just thinks because they didn't preannounce when they beat him up that that was enough to support that and i think that's why he's also rely on the fact that there were statements in his affidavit in testimony that that they were going after him for the financial reasons i mean i believe that instead what do we mean by financial reasons well the financial corruption and mega con that was going on in that office he s in his affidavit that they were interrogating chris know for maggie com and over to case against one of his carly so it looks like that was one of the reasons or one of the central reasons for his persecution there for his term was because they were going after him because of the financial dealings in i mean if you can show past persecution changes the texture of this case quite a bit because of the presumption well if he could but he doesn't show that it was on one central reason that that he was harmed that that he was harm no they're just simply there's no showing that he was harmed because of his association with the park here family it's clear that he was harmed because of the financial dealings or the and that's the only reason while maybe his health was a with rocky i'm sorry so another words while they're beating him they're saying this is why you know i'm not saying that they should be saying that this is are i thought oh well he mentioned that he was beaten because of or the prosecutor had interrogated personnel or had it they had accused him of the management of company or getting money out of the company so that was one of the reasons he said in his in this testimony that they were beating him if there's more than one reason when he passed muster here and for their questions i see none so thank you very much question that was not immediately what came up and besides if it's a financial reason there was be some evidence there in the fact he was being asked to provide false testimony provide a statement that he didn't read or see that do we have evidence of precisely what they wanted him to say that might i don't believe that that was the number it came to that he just refused to sign anything because they didn't know what he would be signing i'm just saying if there was some testimony that he had some idea what they want to say well i don't believe that was asked that hearing  so this is not all about there may be some financial but it's not all about financial it's about other things what it was about it was about his association with the client the i had no associated with that at all he would be there you just be somewhere else working or doing whatever the other millions of people in  n do on a day to day basis he wasn't he was brought into this interrogation room and it was be severely because of that association because of information which he may or may not have had but they wanted him to have against them in their own words so with that in mind with the facts as they are we