future persecution your whole argument on future persecution is that somehow you had if you will a presumption of past persecution and therefore you got something up on the government that they had to come forth with some evidence against it and so therefore i'm looking at the past persecution now your argument about the past persecution is that there were threats against your client and that they one time beach your client is that correct correct on well if that's all there is and that's the best you've got i mean i'm trying to say to myself at that point in time how do i get around the cases which where we say that isn't enough that simply threats and a one time being are not enough in this situation you're on the look at anybody in his in his same situation well but you know i am if i look at bonder and cole versus holder which is a two thousand and thirteen decision there were three detentions and severe beating but there wasn't enough invid tung versus holder and night two thousand and thirteen case there were personal threats and harassment and beatings and it wasn't enough in google versus ashcroft there were two arrests and detentions with a beating and a loss of a job and that wasn't enough so how is your case better than that the difference is the persecut honest we had a difference is the persecutor yes yet on that if a gang member tells where do i find the case that would suggest that the difference is the persecutor i don't have a case law on it but well if you don't have a case then how my supposed to get there we could see it when you're on all you want me to make it oh i see ok you're on the i mean my worry is that you if you don't have past persecution and i look very carefully at your brief to see what you were arguing was the past persecution and you all say it's a threat and you say that it's a beating but that's the best you say in your brief i am so therefore i'm saying to myself i don't know that there's any past persecution here now that doesn't end your case because then we go to future persecution and you have a burden now on future persecution you just can't say i got a presumption you got a burden to meet so what are the things what is the i mean they say they there is no future persecution this issue isn't on that i look at the hypothetical of the driver who used to work for the position there and we ask if he came early hours before he was killed and we didn't night him asylum and he was sent back to his country and he threatened his employee and said we want that boss because want to use it to blow up the school they couldn't get close to the school couldn't get through the gate unless you use a bus with school children to blow up the school then they paid a house call because the employee refused to give them the bus and said no some odd owns the bus they paid a house call to some odd home and beat him with rifles when he refused to give them the bus to allow them to carry out their terrorist bombing the beating was a rifle your honor is not just the physical beating it was i understand i understand they used the butts of their rifles then then he reported this to the police then the police arrested the taliban leader then reportedly the police killed the taliban leader then the taliban killed his employee while he was filling up the bus at the gas pump this isn't that right we're acting but isn't there some never argue which is  i did never see any argument in your briefs that suggests that what happened with the employee related to the past persecution where did you argue that i looked through your brief the best i can see is that beating and the threat one time to your client nobody argues about what happened with the employee as  activity how can we agree it was adjudged by calling taliban's behavior is a criminal activity my question for you sir is was that the basis for the i d f ruling that this wasn't passed persecution because it was he was  refusing to participate in a criminal venture that's correct and nobody in the world will agree was a judge that the taliban is a criminal group it's not criminal group your honor this is a terrorist group otherwise phase should not have got the nobel prize for fighting against the taliban even if it is a terrorist organization what the question is what were they asking him to participate in were they they were asking him to participate in what he perceived as a criminal activity is what but immigration judge said so is can't a terrorist organization participate in a criminal activity as in the that because the organization is widely known as a terrorist act that the in activity action or gang or group that the action in which in gage was necessarily terrorists and  situation the situation the tourists are going to addition wanted to promote their agenda halt their education of children especially girls and that's the goal of bombing the school is there any indication in the record that this japan's question you're relying on that one for that it was terrorist as opposed to criminals that right correctly on my way in order to suggest that it's a if you will social group you've got to suggest what the group is that you belong to it seems to me that your argument is that your client belongs to a social group of health workers and education workers but that's the group i don't they just opposition of the distribution of food was sufficient i believe also that another case on the head of it indicates on was the same that i don't have to be belongs to a group that is in the fight just my opposition that could be enough well you have to show as i understand it in order to have this social group and immutable or innate characteristic in this group and the only group you've suggested is health workers an education workers i look at the mind of the persecuted which also i believe is when i met with him and that was a question i have the same can be for you and i think you're missing the question yes  because there's quite a bit of transcript testimony about this are you claiming imputed political opinion or not or are or are you only claiming health workers and education workers so we need to know that are you claiming that are not y i just ask you a different question you gave me the opposite answer and this is very important as you said in the transcript that i j ask you the same question i asked your client i don't think you were there but asked whether or not that you also claiming the persecution was on account of imputed political opinion i really need to know the answer that question count yes your honor the answer is yes they imputed political opinion is he promoted the education of girls which is something very obvious that the taliban is again is that so how do we get to the imputed political opinion if there is one as i understand it in this particular situation your client was the boss man who bossed people to school the taliban came and asked to use the boss and he wouldn't do the boss for them then he went down to the police they beat him he went down t police and told him that they be him how do we get that how do we make that an imputed political opinions simply because the taliban beat him for not busing the people they wanted him to bus i look at the taliban's as you and i see as i mentioned earlier in malala just use fear to eat she was granted the nobel prize because she was promot involved in education but he was not at the time this event occurred and you're asking us to impute a political opinion backwards and bring it forward to a time evidence that the taliban knew that he had been a health worker and educational worker in this kind of areas you're on the everybody knows everybody's business council you have the burden of proof and it's very difficult to understand your theory and we're trying here you've got a the school system he's not working as a teacher is easy in the education worker at the time of this because he's driving the bus or was he a former education worker judge paint question is important no he he is the driving a bus that's how we can plot to blow up a bus full of school children and he refused to participate could you give us the government's response to your honor i think your question gets to the issue of nexus and the answer there is that substantial evidence supports the agency's finding which is that their motive was not to harm mr smart on account of any protected ground not his religion not his political opinion not his membership in a particular social group rather their motive to target him was because they had the school but he had school buses that they wanted to get most wanted for up for a plot to blow up blow up school children so the i j a i am struggling with this part that i just said well that could just be a criminal activity he's refusing they found incredible that he refused to participate in this criminal activity as opposed to a terrorist activity could you tell me why why should we view this as a criminal activity rather than a terrorist activity since there's no profit motive well your honor respectfully i don't read the immigration judge's decision that way i think with the immigration judge is saying in that paragraph of his decision is that they're targeting mr some odd not because of his political opinion or his religion or membership in a group but rather just to get these buses and they're punishing him for not giving him the buses and i their effort to they're not just a criminal gang well you're out of the immigration judge didn't indicate that they were criminal gang in fact we actually responded to this argument i think in our brief the petitioners point there is just that the immigration judge cited sanchez lemus which  a case about criminal gangs but the immigration judge didn't mistake the taliban for again his point citing that case was merely that punishing someone for refusing to comply with a demand doesn't necessarily create a nexus to a protected ground right ok but but we're still not getting to my question i think it's the one that we're all struggling with ok it seems very far fetched to me and maybe that's unfair but i but it is certainly surprising to me that someone would describe the taliban's plot which we must take as credible that's what g found that there was a plot to blow up a bus full of school children by the taliban in that we would treat that as criminal activity as opposed to terrorist activity what's the strongest argument that the government has that that's that this was a reasonable finding that the record does not compel a country conclusion because you're out of the immigration judge is not framing this is criminal versus terrorist use framing this is criminal verses on account of a political opinion criminal as  the department of state that talks about the taliban's goals and mission and how country they are to educating schoolchildren especially girls so can you help me with background of this is a lie a saccharine as i think that's where your honor's question if a forgive me th saccharine this court prior to being reversed by the supreme court had reached a holding that's similar to what i think mr summit is pursuing here and i think what's behind your honour's question  there the court had held that opposition to a group with a political goal creates a nexus to a protected ground because that opposition itself either expresses or creates the imputation of a political opinion and the supreme court reversed that finding they said listen what we're looking for is persecution on account of the victim's political opinion there are a lot of reasons to oppose a political organization other than opposition to its political goals i think the example of supreme court cases political opinion i guess if he were here would be that he is favoring educating young children including girls while your own as was his that was his work that was his mission well i think that's a fair reason inadequate well because your honor that's not what the dispositive question is the question is when these members of the taliban targeted mr some odd were they trying to punish him for a political opinion were they trying to punish him for a religious view they're punishing him because he didn't give them the buses we know that because that's what mr some odd testified if we're thinking are so let me go let me go further so at the fact that he owns the buses and he drives children to school that would give us the political opinion or the motive so when the taliban first came and beat him there was probably no motive what worries me are these facts there after he turned these people in this ultimately resulted in this driver's death there is thus a possibility it seems that the motive became an impudent political opinion at that point where he had gone e m he turned them in he had done what he had to do and therefore it might be an appeal and then putin political opinion i can understand your going to say well just personal revenge not enough but what if it became an impudent political opinion by turning them in not only turning them in for beating him but turning them in and saying you ought to go do something about this does this make it something better respectfully or no i don't think so because we would need facts on the record to compel that conclusion i think the theory that your honour's tracing out is what if the taliban were to target him because well let me put it this way in order for that theory to be supported by the record we would need evidence number one that these members of the taliban knew when the military retaliated against them that it was mr some odd who would turn them in and we would need evidence that that was why they had targeted the driver as opposed to just mr simmons in the driver's refusal to give them the busses well i guess that's a great argument but to reverse and send it back we would need to find that the record compels the conclusion alone certainly does not address this particular issue well you know i'd return to something that your honor asked mr smogs counsel a moment ago which is that he really hasn't set forth in his briefing or before the agency a theory linking the subsequent death of mr gould the driver though in other words i made the link but nobody else has is that what you're saying i'm saying your honor is i mean an interpreter a true interpreter there is certainly circumstantial evidence here that connects the dots pretty strongly well even strongly enough that judge smith is pausing and so we give each other a hard time it's our it's our the type of evidence we look for to see whether an attacker's conduct is driven by a political opinion imputed or otherwise we could see direct evidence in that case for example but we also have cases is that you don't have to you don't have to have them come in and say an articulate in words you know we're retaliating for you because that's what turned them in the police apparently killed that taliban leader they respond by killing the bus driver how how tough is it to connect the dots well your honor is it is it your argument there was a lengthy period of time know your own argument is that we can surmise that that might have been the case here but there isn't evidence in the record that compels that conclusion and i understand your honour's point that not every attacker says here's why  attacking right you don't get direct evidence in any case in every case but seeing also give us an example of what kind of indirect evidence we could look for i mean in that case for example the victim was associated with a person that the government viewed as being a kashmiri terrorist and as soon as they got the victim into the interrogation room the attackers started accusing the victim also of being a kashmiri terrorist that kind of circumstantial evidence it doesn't need to be a direct statement here's why i'm targeting you but we can get circumstantial evidence that shows a connection here the only evidence in the record when it comes to the death of mr gould the driver is that after mr some odd was threatened he reported it to the principal the principal reported it to the military the military captured someone who was in the taliban and killed  and later on other members of the taliban shot mr goble and so in our district feeling that while he was refusing the bus that he had refused to give them earlier when they demanded it so we would need something more than those facts to conclude that the record compel agency got it right in this case and i point out that barack has for mero itself distinguish another case from this court which was it tino on the basis that that case wasn't a mixed motive case it was an either or case and that's what we've got here too and we pointed that out in our answering brief in order for the distinction between because of for withholding a from evil and on account of for asylum to make a difference in other words in order for us to get into bras ramiro territory we've got to have a mixed motive case which is a case where the immigration judge finds there are multiple possible motives here and then he or she says so now we have to go to the additional step of figuring out which one predominated but this isn't that case because here the m gratian judge said we can tell their motive is it's that they were upset at mr smart because you wouldn't give him the buses that they wanted and we know that it wasn't anything else because we do know what it was it was not a mixed motive case we're figuring out which one predominates knows my bras doesn't control thank you