determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that mr menace will suffer or be in danger of being subjected to torture very difficult time producing the evidence and i put forth on direct testimony all of the efforts that they made to get the evidence of the danger facing their son and brother mr jose humanise and it brings us down to this very pesky standard that we're always fighting with which is more likely than not and how do you judge that it's not speculative because in essence i brought them in the family brought all the news reports they gave their testimony we have a trail of bodies and in most criminal investigations the kind of evidence that we have would certainly suffice to get a warrant to make an arrest pressed charges that there are substantial grounds for believing that there was a vendetta against this family and again the standard here is not a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt we just need a more likely than not substantial grounds for believing that  got when the father brought him to the hospital and he was convicted and sentenced to prison that's why nothing happened between the time when he was put into prison and he attempted to kill the father the first time and killed the eldest son and when he got out of prison and restarted his campaign of killing his family members and the second time he shot the father the father survived the third time he made sure that the father didn't survive and since then there have been a number of family members who have been killed and kidnapped and disappeared and tortured and that's why the family is so fearful in fact  menaces deportation he was living quietly as he could with his grandmother and he was also there with another person and other male living in the house and to reopen bed unfortunately we can't consider that evidence one way or judging and this i j may have be totally wrong he may have gotten it totally wrong but i think bottom line that i gave that well let's see evidence that they're really going to go after mr heene minister that they would actually know who yes i think that the evidence there is the fact that they didn't stop at the father have brothers and cousins anyone from the cement his family even that has extended beyond the father of was just wanting to get revenge against the one guy who brought me to the hospital when i didn't want to go to the hospital and cause me to suffer a twenty five year jail sentence in a mexican prison and it would have ended there then i agree mike he's would be substantially weaker but when it went on and it continues the murders continue wasn't that part of what was the assumption the evidence is very credible that these things happened the events to the people but the rationale behind it the story that thread some all together there wasn't there wasn't anything other than the family's belief that these were all happening as a result of this one individual who is orchestrating this whole thing there's no i didn't see anything in the record that suggested there was like  correspondence saying we're going to get you that that there were out witnesses outside the family who said you know yes that there is a contract out on everybody's life and that family they could all be the unfortunate random events involving other people and other transactions that members of the family may have been involved in ok i can address that a couple ways first is the abduction of the brother in law believe it was the three year anniversary of the the abduction that happened at the memorial ceremony as all tied together they i think the news the local news tied it all together because they refer back to all of these events that it wasn't just  this family are tied together it's not random acts and even when you say you santa but the question you asked is you know how do we know that they didn't have other enemies  you know other reasons for for these events and you answer as well even the newspaper saying the pattern i don't see what how that's evidence of anything ok i mean you could you could you could bring in you know if there were evidence of conclusion doesn't that's not evidence ok the sister nigga trying to negotiate a release for her brother in she got shot also for her trouble trying again to deal with the saying it's not about if it was just about money then it would have been a simple ransom kidnaping we see these all the time but they weren't really that interested in  them also the individuals that were subjected to the to the other incidents had more direct contact with the father petitioners opening brief for starters as a father as a pension quote pension for getting into trouble with criminals so we don't know why driving retribution for that the family assumes it's the zetas the family is the one consistently saying it is it is this is a this is a this no one else has confirmed that there is nothing to confirm that there's no correspondence was was discussed coun suggests that there's substantial grounds for criminal charges but against who we have no idea who would be charged they assume it's the zetas but they can't prove it's the zetas and that's what substantial evidence requires substantial evidence for does not allow for mere disagreement about the facts that the facts could go one way or the other credible testimony may be enough to satisfy the burden of proof but but a belief is not enough to create an objective objective lee evidence very information in this case for whatever reason he would be brought back for that purpose he was a lawful permanent resident however he lost that status given his considered connection for transportation a large like so he know he is now illegal  and he's brought in that way doesn't that does he then have an entry and doesn't doesn't that change the status i'm just i'm just wondering what the mechanics of that is as he's not sneaking am he not being brought in by the united states  wouldn't it be like bringing a material witness back in to testify he'd be paroled back in the united states held in the custody of the ins and then if he could post bond he'd be able to be out of custody but  he would be in the united states under that that parole status i think we're talking about two different scenarios in such prisons these scenarios he's been granted captive for all i believe that has right so he could be free to government isn't acquiescing bed he could come in and say well the circumstances change here's new evidence that shows here's this is what happened and they are really after him and put it before guy j for further fact finding and without exception right he could potentially file that but i believe in the question i thought i was answering before eight c f r one thousand three point one zero point two g i'm guessing here but i think circumstances but again he has to satisfy his burden of proof it's essentially the same yes this case i mean i recognize he has one criminal conviction but he doesn't have a lengthy come no history and he's been here in the united states since he was a little kid he has other equities in his favor his family members for one is do you know would you be willing to to mediate to see whether he would be able to perhaps  asked them about prosecutorial discretion of any kind here in light of the substantial convection it might only be one conviction that is still for transporting seven hundred kilos of cocaine i've had difficulty with prosecutorial discretion in cases where