after a individual hearing on september thirtieth two thousand and fifteen the immigration judge denied the application all applications and entered removal he then killed in mexico one brother many well was a involved in politics and he was killed in may of two thousand and eleven he was working as a brother and a brother in law or two brothers southern a brother  was kidnapped and held for a month and a half so that's what we believe that the nexus established the i know the government maintains that this is not a mix motive case but i believe that it is because you do have two modes number one you have the motive of the death of men well and his brother or brother in law and then the issue of the ransom that comes up because the i j a and the b h said listen these these are terrible cases it's happened to this family however here again they're citing to the general violence in nature and private individuals causing that it's because in this case a ransom occurred i can't get around that fact that the ransom did it true my client paid it but it's our position that because of the client's sister it's the so the asking about that your client ran away he fled after the brother was murdered and his brother in law was murdered about a year later but he ran off to he was in a pile of harm a good distance away and he was fine for about three years then as i understand it he was stopped by the police he gave  identification his his speculation circumstantial evidence to be sure is that that outed him right yes and then he and then there's this terrible kidnapping yes truly terrible kidnapping what is the evidence about how they needed new to contact his sister for the ransom  the evidence come from that well as the evidence would come from that i believe the testimony of the respondent that they because of the family relationship they knew the family because many of us in the politics and it was well known kidnap him we're going to hold him for rounds so we know let's assume we have that connection as soon as he sort of reveals his name and address that alerts the gang they get the government's argument is that but they didn't target him because of the family connection and political opposition they target him because they wanted the money now let's assume that this is slightly different and instead of kidnapping him they had said you know we don't like your brother we don't like your brother in law and we don't like you we're going to be nice to you want to kill you but will too would you please give us one hundred fifty thousand dollars how is that different from kidnapping and i want to government have a question too because if the argument from the government side is all they want is money well they're they're clearly imposing significant hardship on him by asking for the money and why are they imposing significant hardship on them well maybe because they want the money but maybe also because they don't like the family that only families political involvement and that's what i would say that's the argument that's the argument and if we're talking asylum in government holding i mean if we're talking asylum we need to show that it is a central motive that right yes not least actual mode and what is a central motive mean i mean outside of the area also and you know the difference seems to be because the other male members of this family have met you know very serious consequences here but but these two have not and and there's  the that there there wasn't a police stop or anything else that indicated who those two were and your client was fine for three years on the pi a farm until he was stopped by the police and identified so we go back to  you've got to compel so and then we have a central reason and then what the i guess for withholding this a little bit a little lower and terms of their briefs and so if there's really a couple ways that you can explain  how do i get to where you want to go because the because they did give an explanation of how they saw it another way well and they're actually seeing the evidence and those of us that then trial judges know that when you hear things sometimes they're different than when you when advocates come and just talk about the record so if i'm looking at compel how do i if it looks like they were considering two different explanations both of which could have some support and the evidence how does it come hell i think it compels when you tie it to the political issue that comes up with them and well what you're basically saying there's only one way to look at it i guess is what you're saying and the b i i didn't go they didn't go without an explanation they had their way they i mean they did you know whether you agree with that or not i mean i guess that the that the b i a did come up with another way that they look at it so i'm just wondering does that does that defeat have different facts settings words and tire family that's being targeted and that family is political so i would say that their reliance that this was they focused on the ransom and saying that this is merely a money generating operation to ransom kidnap people and get ransom however if that's the case why would they keep him for a month and a half and torturing so there's another reason it doesn't seem to me to be quite the same as other submit any evidence that he would be singled out for torture is is that enough of a hook for you to see if it's hard to believe that they really could have said that there didn't you know that well but i mean i what i guess what i'm saying is there could be arguments both ways to look at the other things but to say there was no evidence  on the cat claim does that mean they just said that everything that had happened up to that point didn't at it wasn't they weren't considering it or whether they mean again the i would say that they didn't even consider it even though it was there you had the evidence you had the testimony had credible testimony my client as well as family members and documentation that supported it so i'm saying that  else in addition to the comments of the immigration judge that i believe was air sixty four where he said that the government does there is documentation that supports that the government does acquiesce to this type of behavior military not to the police i noticed and it seems to be that the allegation is that the police were in cahoots to follow up on judge walters question but she felt that it was she would go to the military this couldn't do anything fighters question and you answer his question do you do you mean government police or dreaming government military what are you referring to when you say we acquiesce oh the military and the government or all avenues of law enforcement as we see what evidence is actively participate i'm not sure that defeats a claim of the fact that the military didn't do much exactly ok let's hear from the other side yes  read he did not seem any evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that anyone single him out for torture in the event of his return in the future that's what that's what return means right discussions of past forgery or allegations of could if i couldn't get you on he has this horrible kidnapping he has you can escape his sister paid the ransom they let him go in the middle of nowhere and his his testimony found credible by the immigration court was that he was told if you come back we're going to  this is pretty recent the focus here are worse than in some cases actually there's still a lot of cases that are pretty slim but this and he was found credible and it it does seem though we don't really wait to advent the b i a does give some explanations as to how it can be looked at differently but it does seem somewhat of an anomaly to say that there wasn't any evidence i mean this what this petitioner had more than i've seen a lot of people a lot of people come in pretty thin but there was a lot that happened to this family and and to him personally well we're talking about a lot of different standards here whether or not past events rose to the level of torture ultimately is the question of whether or not it's suggestive a future of torture and even assuming the agency urged with respect to the absence of evidence of  future torture that the question then you can assume that's true assume that agency got that wrong did agency or on the question of whether or not the government would acquiesce to that torture and the immigration judge explicitly said no that mexican government is the court clearly believes that they just got it wrong with respect to the absence of evidence of future torture but the question then is on the acquiescence point it's courtis reason that it should remain for the agency for her to come talk about withholding a asylum and then withholding or start with over having the want to see if the standards are slightly different asylum generally if you don't get that one you you don't qualify for withholding and the question here is whether or not substantial evidence supports compelling the one you don't get the and that's not really true it's a little bit less true now than it used to be rocks with holding hands this is what we're what driving at so for him with the land of withholding just within that category and this doesn't have to be a central reason but just one reason this being this prominent family connection what's your best answer there on the agency down that's the social group membership again there was no question about the viability of the social group itself the agency found that the social group membership was not a reason at all ok so let's talk about that because now we're now where i want to be for me this is the hard part of the case this petitioner fled would have to his prominent brother was murdered then we have these newspaper accounts and really gory photos showing those another a second very  spectacular demonstrative murder i would say somebody trying to make a point he fled though and he was ok for three years on a pious farm until he was stopped by the police circumstantial evidence right but it seems to me to be pretty significant because two other members of his family that lived male who lived outside of the of the area and and it hadn't been you know weren't so identifiable they were fine too so why shouldn't i think that's important for the nexus analysis at least for withholding it's absolute it's important for both asylum and withholding this court's decision and hakeem and it's been treated the same way for decades now that family members especially similarly situated family members remaining in the aliens from country  on armed absolutely informs the reasonableness of the harm they only and claims now fear but you understand what i'm saying about the to the father and other brother it cuts both ways it cuts both ways again that's a question of weight whether or not they're similarly situated position of claims he's more closely aligned to men well in his suits men well because he worked with them and they didn't that's the only hope it's not the only hook because here's the here's what i'm trying to get at when he was why else you go out of your way to kidnap upaya farmer right until you realize who weighs family connection is he was fine for three years why would they think that this apply a farmer would have access his family would have or know how to find his family by the way know how to find a sister and then to ransom into a man five hundred thousand pesos we're getting getting back to what we were discussing earlier about the rampant crime in mexico yes it is a serious crime is an ongoing issue in mexico generally kidnapping is extremely common he made that connection whether or not there was enough here to overcome that it can happen is unfortunately very common that he happened to have a past that he they believe and that they subjectively believe these things doesn't make them necessarily objectively true the statute requires credible testimony that is also persuasive credible evidence that is persuasive a lot of coincidence it's a whole lot of clinton the coincidences crime in like you well that's obvious that's the connection there they're telling you what the connection is we don't have that here we have the family saying well these are similar trucks they were dressed similarly but then you have the two murders of two individuals that are much more politically active and then this individual the spinners that wasn't changed my variation slightly so that it is we have killed your brother and your brother and now we know who you are and we would like hundred fifty thousand know they killed the brother in law and we have enough evidence to know that they don't come after him until they know who he is which is to say related to the do people who are dead so i'm assuming based on the evidence here there's very strong that when they came after him they knew exactly who he was and that he was related to two people that they had killed i'm not entirely certain of the timing of the police identification of him and when he was kidnapped how far apart that was but again that's all speculation or says that that's very strong evidence again this is this is speculative he's well i'm not i'm not one to i don't like to get a gotcha on judges just because i've been a judge in the trial court and there aren't always like magic words but it does seem that with all of the things that we've talked about and that he was found credible it does seem very weird that the judge would have said did not submit any evidence any that would be singled out for torture so if you said you're credible that i mean it just seems so i'm wondering for me it's hard to say is that is that a cursory conclusion or is it a failure to consider all of the evidence if you just say there isn't any i mean it's hard for me to believe that a judge could forget that two people got murder from then until now but  any that would not be a case that i would likely i might say well i'm not persuaded that it's sufficient or i see other explanations and but he did present evidence and i do believe that what happened to him happened to him you know i do believe there that they died i do believe that he got kidnapped i do believe all of that right and but blah blah blah but to say what you haven't given us any evidence it's like where you the well the board wasn't there and there's too well several pieces to this welsh evidence there was evidence that supported his position it wasn't it wasn't as evidence free as some things we say there are things  people they're pretty slim raids took to get to that point i think to your point would be that the immigration judge would need to have found that his past kidnapping constitutes torture i j found what your honor was asking earlier is about the discussion of the facts and we have an immigration judge decision here that spends nearly ten pages discussing all of the facts and then three pages applying this is not your i've seen less for immigration judge is better that way  and we have the board that adopted in affirming the immigration judge's decision so the court is considering both ultimately the question is whether or not this record compels a country conclusion and given that crime is indeed a substantial problem in mexico that was the conclusion that the agency found was the reason the petition was targeted that they believe these things is a subjective belief that the agency did not find persuasive which is required under the statute thank you energy thank you thank you