i have no doubt that the immigration judge in this case had every good intention in cutting my client's testimony short i think she really did just want to focus his testimony on what she considered to be important but given the history of the situation i don't think her course of action was appropriate at all my client years after he had submitted his application had to submit an additional declaration basically because the initial asylum application didn't express his reasons for seeking asylum fully and in fact in the in the such conduct aeration he stated that that might asylum application doesn't expressed my reasons for seeking asylum fully and he also f with in the in the declaration i i will explain more in my oral testimony so i think i just read the transcript differently but it seems to me that what the immigration judge did basically was say look i understand what all with that well it wasn't it wasn't an open ended if there's anything else if there's anything else you want to say go to it because she did foreclose him from saying anything more he might have wanted to say about what he actually had in his written declaration and what was that i mean how are you prejudiced from that restriction i mean because it's not uncommon in an industry of law proceedings to submit and accelerations and then add anything that might might be in addition i contain the declaration believe what was said here was he wants to cooperate what's on the declaration so how you prejudice well well the thing is his lawyer said he wanted to that it would be good to have his testimony and just for the sake of consistency and then there was some there was some back and forth between the lawyer and the immigration judge and when the when the whole subject came up the immigration judge said basically if this i'll i'll give him the consistency he doesn't have to i don't want to hear all this stuff unless it's going to amplify what's what's in that in the written stuff and then after some back and forth with the judge with the lawyer she basically told the lady go off the record and  go off the record explain to his client my client that he didn't need to be talking about all that stuff because it's all set forth fully in the declaration but so what would have made a difference what did your client want to say that would have changed the outcome of potentially out term determinative facts or evidence that would have come in if this had gone on longer and it's hard to understand what that might be it's all very vague you're just saying we were i think this i think at this stage of the game it's it is difficult to speculate and i think that given given his expressed intention is written declaration ticks explain more in his oral testimony i think there's certainly a potential that the outcome of the case was was affected for instance the immigration judge in the end found that his fears were too speculative that he didn't have a plan to he didn't have a concrete plan for investigating the deaths of his relatives and i think she she she didn't question the sincerity of his beliefs in the sincere desire to see justice done but but thought it was very speculative whether how much whether he would act on that or to what extent he would act on that and i think if you've been able to testify additionally he could i think the depth of his relationship with some of the people he had mentioned in his in  his in his written declaration could have been flushed out i think i think another thing that wasn't really explored was the potential connection between the various incidents there they were kind of just listed one two three four the written declaration is actually pretty vague i thought and having been an immigration court plenty of times i know that testimony testimony can go all over the place like i think people i think memory sometimes get triggered just by the stress of in court testimony so it's difficult for me to say precisely what he would have said but i  think there was definitely an outcome determinative potential in this case that he didn't have a plan for for investigating the deaths of his relatives he was never quite specifically asked that he was asked whether he had he said he was asked what he'd done from here to investigate the deaths of in his relatives and he and he testified that he had talked his cousin wilson who's in the military he contacted his cousin wilson was in the military in guatemala to see if you would inquire and wilson out of fear of sort of internal military reprisal declined to do so and then after that my client in testimony basically seem to express some dejection as to the ice in the hopes of personally being able to do anything certainly from certainly from the united states proof i guess that would depend upon whether whether he's found to have suffered past persecution i would concede that he didn't that he probably bore the burden of proof in this matter but i do think that the bases given that she found his testimony to be credible and that she created it is in his desire to see justice done and the sincere his political beliefs i think i don't think i don't think it's reasonable for her to her to  base her doubts about whether he would actually act on his beliefs on a finding that he didn't have a plan and even if he didn't have a plan to investigate she obviously had the wherewithal to contact a cousin in the military from here and i don't i don't think there's i don't think would've been with a huge leap from from that to having the wherewithal to do something more concrete once you're actually sort of on site in guatemala  if if your testimony is credited i think you can especially in light of the faction the record which seem to document a pattern of abuse against people who inquire into human rights workers and i only have about a minute and twenty seconds left here so the last point i would just like to bring up is in finding also in finding that history was speculative she stated that the record by no means establishes that every every human rights worker every person who respect to his complaint about the conduct the immigration judges conduct the hearing he relies on two portions of the record pages seventy nine and eighty one and he three hundred eighty five and i think each portion must be viewed in context after the first  said well it was i would have been intimidated by the guerrillas and councils and what do you mean by by that he did exactly answer so then counsel went back to persecution again it was only at that point after four times that the immigration judge energy acted merely pointed out they're going around in circles which is true they were going on in circles and then all the immigration judges did was suggest that they perhaps go with the questioning from a different angle and he didn't order counsel to do anything he merely had it he merely suggested in council apparently aware that he was not really getting anywhere or seated as the immigration judge suggested so in context the immigration judge was correct and i think it's worthy of note that this issue didn't look come up until the appeal to the board where he was represented by different counsel who wasn't there at the complain hypothetically at that point counsel and said no i have some affirmative evidence beyond the declaration i want to present it would be a different matter what i believe then there might be some evidence in the record but it's counsel's not the proverbial potted plant if he actually thought there was something else he wanted to get to then he could have he could have moved in that direction immigration judge didn't direct him to do anything you just suggested that you perhaps can move in this direction or that direction and and counsel agree with him speculation so because there because he has an alleged prejudice and because the immigration judge didn't cut off his questioning he should not be able to prevail on that issue i'm moving to the merits there was no pas persecution shown in this case nothing happened to me in the past i would support that claim so the only issue is whether or not the record compels inclusion that he has a well founded fear of trying to guatemala based on events that predate the peace the peace accords and motivation because he wanted to investigate his cousin's deaths and because he also said that he would speak up because there is no justice for the poor because the immigration judge pointed out a page fifty one everything he's talking about is based on his  speculative it's not a it's not a compelling claim in this court he alleged his he was a fear of reprisals for investigating his cousin's death but that fear is based on his speculation that the government had anything to do with those deaths and the government wouldn't want him to look into it he didn't present any evidence on either of those those issues the threshold and as i point out is declaration was was based on hearsay of his friend mr if he points to page three sixty one he says he doesn't even know if not this is a plan that you may or may not engage in could support your claim maybe it may be in a can i don't know the immigration judge didn't say if we had it you know with a stronger case that might happen but in this case he has the burden of proof he says that his desire to of investigating and we think you can do it from guatemala want to question his the strength of his desire let me ask a different question is it your view that a family can constitute a social group within the meaning of opinion situation because let's take an example let's say that the government was persecuting the father of the family because he likes the color blue shirt and that of course is not going to get him anywhere i think it's pretty clear that one can  rules will apply but i'm just asking you what you think a family can constitute a social group within the meaning of the eye and say well if you're i don't i mean there is you're just asking mike my opinion that no i mean you have to fit you  i think that's the that's the claim that's before the court and as to the country conditions yes the country conditions show that there are problems in water but the country conditions do go both ways there's evidence page one sixteen perfect certainly not but there is evidence that that would go both ways on that and there is evidence of two fifty one of general lawlessness in the country which which could explain why some of his family and friends have been harms he certainly hasn't presented any evidence target of religious so let's just to speculate about what would have happened and he talks about his brother maybe having had contacts with the guerrillas but he doesn't like to the guerrillas even knowing about his brother know that he's related to his brother or would want to harm him because of his brother not completely in disagreement with mr grimes that there's a lot of speculation and conjecture in his in his written declaration but i think that's precisely the reason why it was he was so important that very immigration judged not for closed his testimony on that written declaration and simply assume that that his test that his testimony would not amplify what was written in that declaration especially in light of the fact that he actually said in that declaration that i will explain more in my oral testimony and i think that the desire i think there's more than just a desire an intent to see something done here it does take it does take some some something more than just an inquiry desire to contact a cousin in the military in guatemala from the united states to to see if you would assist in inquiries because i'm just about done with my