main issues in this case in this case with regard to gang attack and recruitment the the main issues as i understand them is that my client had told the gangs that he did not believe the gangs were good for his town or for his country and the question is whether this is political speech which would allow him to obtain asylum or if it is not  the nd question then would be whether if it is political speech whether this is one central reason for his persecution and also the rd question would be whether he is eligible under the convention against torture my client had three enter actions with gang members in the st use on the street gang members came up to him and demanded that he joined a gang it was time he told them that he did not wish to do so because he felt the gangs were bad for his town and his country at which point he was immediately beaten isn't any denial of it isn't any refusal to join a gang implicitly in the statement that i don't think gangs are good it is but in this case his mention is saying directly to the gang members that why he believes that the gangs are bad for the area is not just a refusal to join the gang it is it is also a political opinion expressing why he believes not just that he should not be joining the gang but why the gangs are harmful to the entire country that is the mc crux of this case is whether it is a political opinion of i get mugged on the street and i say you know i really i just think muggings are bad for the city and for the country and grounds i declined to give you my wallet that's political speech in this case i believe it is and there is a deeper meaning to it this is not just a group of young thugs on the street and this thirteen which is a gang that is identified in here is an international who has been recognized by the united states government is an international criminal organization they have  tentacles and documentation which we have provided to the court which was exhibit four at the immigration court level of the u s state department finds that the main principle of human rights violations stemmed from widespread corruption and i'll solve the gangs have their tentacles into the government itself there are also news articles in that package of documents explaining that the gangs have been placing their own members in both the police and into the army while the government of el salvador has been greatly corrupted by the gangs it's not just a small group of people rising if they are going to my colleagues st question went that mean that anyone who says i'm not joining a gang is expressing a political opinion i mean is it is it enough just by virtue of joining because of what you describe is the social political context in the country that any refusal to join a gang is an expression of political opinion most people don't wish to join a gang because of their own beliefs their own moral beliefs their own decisions as to what they want their life to be like but the political statement would go to the and for the country so the question comes down to really is this a political statement or not i believe it is and i believe it is because of the fact that the gangs are more than just street hoodlums think organized crime is bad and that would be a political statement it depends on how it was expressed really i would know if i said if i just said no that would not be political speech but if you say no and let preservation and deeper than just a moral outrage towards oh we said we had a case that dealt with corruption in government and we noted that the dispute can become political when the petitioner marshal support from similarly affected individuals publicizes and criticizes and demick corruption said the expression of opposition to corruption was not just about saving money for his business it was  broader political statement against corruption is there anything like that in this record other than the petitioners statement the contents of what he said i think zang actually buttresses my client's case  that they are saying that zang didn't fact go beyond just saying i do not wish to pay these bribes and i'm saying that this is a defect of our government and i believe it is similar you know my client did not marshal any further support for in fact had his arm broken and and went on after that but i think it is the same thing it's just exactly perhaps had a more organized approach to it and you want to see a much take a moment and talk about the cat claim and then i would like to if i have just a moment your honor the police were there when he was put your world to the concrete in such a manner as to break his arm he felt that he was empowered to say things about this in front of the gang because the police were there and the police not only did not help him they the ones who brought him there they are the ones who brought him home and i know that torture passed torture is not a guarantee that there will be future torture but those police officers are likely still in place and they still  are he is still a witness to their complicity and to the gangs thank you thank you you reserve some time for a bottle we'll hear from the government court my name is lori were like and i am here on behalf of the united states attorney general the courts to deny this petition for review as the agency has actually appropriately determined that mr zelaya merely stating that he would not join a gang because he felt that they are bad for the town and the country did not actually constitute eight political opinion but moreover even if it were political that's not what motivated these gangs to attack  overwhelmingly indicates that it was his refusal to join that motivated his attacks and finally that substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of mr zelaya as claim given that there's no indication in the record that  he would like be more likely subject to torture you know so i was credible was he not yet and he described this attack with police officers in the room and in fact his counsel pointed out the police officers actually brought him to the place where he was attacked how could he expect any protection from police if he were sent back the gravity of the cat claim that he could not be protected in the future there are several elements to the cat claim that would have to be established st being government acquiescence and plainly these three police officers have been corrupted but i will note that in this town mr zelaya had the mayor submit a letter on his behalf immigration court and the evidence indicates that or so mr zelaya testified that he thought the mayor and deputy mayor perhaps sometimes endanger themselves when they sort of try to interfere with this gang activity which to me reflects that the leadership of this town is actually not in cahoots if you will with the gang so to speak and in fact this town is is what one town in this larger country in el salvador and the speculation about how the government receives me the police officers or the the mayor or the government of this town could know that he had returned or that he had left as is in fact as i said i mean he still lives there and every time he went outside they seem to have found him so are you saying it's ok we send him back if he never was able to leave his home you know of course i would never suggest that he remain inside to protect himself but i will know that these are just three incidents and they're each about two months apart and only during i believe he said he stayed home after the nd incident but they approached him these three these three times and it doesn't appear that they've gone back to his home to  sort of either threaten his younger brother who we know gangs are typically more interested in the younger men in some of these towns but also haven't addressed his sisters or his family and mr zelaya testified that in his town the gang is interested in everyone that they would like anyone and everyone to join them including adults women children everyone but the fact that they have not gone to his home or threatened anyone that he knew of to that he could speak to certainly undermines the argument that when he returns  more likely than not would be subject to actual torture by or with the acquiescence of the car have there reason to believe that those police officers are not still on the force is that correct but there's no evidence there's no evidence that they like the police and other criminal elements frequently corrupt certain high level officials and security officers and throughout the world honestly and just that alone without any sort of evidence establishing any sort of likelihood to meet the burden of proof here would certainly cut the other way do we have really have enough from the b i a in terms of the way in terms of analysis of this political opinion claim i mean as i look at the opinion they just seem to be saying refusing to join a gang without more does not constitute an opinion political opinion and gangs are not gangs or criminal organizations and not political or governmental organizations but based on the exchange we've had this morning does not suggest there needed to be more contextual analysis because certainly opposition to a gang could rise to the level of political opinion and given the right surrounding context and the right sort of opposition well i've course i noticed that the board did not provide citations to this court case law or money many of their but the statements that they provided are in fact from case law that statement that opposition to gang activity is not alone a political statement is from matter of u h c and also matter of the supreme court decision and this statement that it must be directed at a government organization or regarded government organization is consistent with this course statement and saying that it must be directed toward a government institution and i don't think that's statement may be and he's to least regard government action government involvement a previous government the even the examples that mr ross and petitioner provided in the brief that you know you can talk about bussing activity or whether certain statue should be allowed to be presented in public but even those involved government action of some sort whether it's the current government or prior government in this case the gangs are in fact essentially a political they don't care what the government does they don't care what the government says they're interested in guns money and recruitment and they want to they do want to wield power but until they there's no sort of be a coup here there's no over overturning the governor they're actually acting as a government authority in here the government tolerated because they have no way not to but there's also evidence in the record that they have made many it would turn to this the example of the mob i can turn to say or another prolific criminal organization i can say i'm against drug dealers even prolific drug dealers that work in my neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods but that isn't virtually a political statement that has nothing to do with what the government does not change that let's say i said i think the government isn't doing enough to combat these criminal and this criminal element that would be a political statement because it has to do with what the government is doing or not doing and here it's not implicit when mister says this is bad for our town and our country  implicit that he's saying the government has been ineffective in protecting all of us from this gang which has tentacles into every element of life in my little town well that may be what he meant but legitimate government of the country can't protect me from this well that may be the inference that someone might take but here in this record it's clear that that's not what these gang members took from his statement or at least they didn't care what his statement was right the gang members who don't write they did at every turn when they st approached him they said join us and i can give you the transcript sites and everything but that the st when i st approached him they said join us he said no because you're harmful to my town or country they beat him up and said join or leave this town they didn't say anything about his opinion political or not when they came back two months later these three apparent police officers took him to this gang house the gang leader said didn't say anything about his opinion and said so join us and he said no three he was beaten up by apparently five gang members of course it's not going to do anything anyone would wish on someone but the gang leader said stop and instead of saying you think we're bad for the country will be bad for you or anything to even reflect that they even cared about it let alone whether it was political instead he said immediately you should really consider joining us and then when those officers took him back home they didn't say anything about what we can do we're cops we can harm you they said you really should think about it would be better for you basically you have to you're going to have to join and then when they finally came back the last time and now you might not want to turn to the police officers when he was back in el salvador i would understand he would not want to go to those three but he has apparently has a friend in the mayor and he could at least go to him now in the last time they said when he finally got home and he went to the doctor he came back and they they said asked if he had decided to join otherwise they would kill him they still didn't say anything about his opinion if i may have a moment to conclude our last point i'll make besides the general policy point about the what this would do to establish a political opinion based on gang activity in an entire region i would just like to point the court to page one hundred and twelve of the transcript when i asked him so why do you think they got mad at you do you know and he said because i didn't want to join testified for a couple of hours he may have misspoken people do get nervous when they are and when they are in the court room and regards him saying that it's only because he had refused to join  gang he had three interactions with his gang twice he said to them i do not agree with the gangs because they are bad for my town and country both times he was immediately attacked the rd time that he did the gang which was the last time the gang said you need to join us he did not say anything and he was not attacked to me that appears to be a direct correlation the immigration judge noted it is an immigration judge who's done fifteen years of these these types of cases the gangs will usually use what he calls the carrot and stick they will usually say why don't you join us because it will be good for you you will make money you will be protected they didn't do that they came to him and told him to join and then they beat him but they never the entire security apparatus is compromise there i don't think having one friend that was the mayor of the town is going to protect him the one thing about the convention against torture claim is that the b i even said that fracturing his arm is not torture i can understand how that could not be considered torture i believe that he has been tortured in the past