the court jami wrangle on behalf of the petitioner the board of immigration appeals has authority to review an immigration judges finding a fax for clear error this includes the finding on the likelihood of future events clear error analysis requires that the board determine if the immigration judge committed a clear air in deciding that the petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured if returned to south sudan is this issue before the b i a now in the motion to reconsider the motion to they sustained the previous order of the court they didn't issue a new decision and that the matter of jurisdiction before this court we are only asking the court to decide matters of law and we are not asking the court to review the petition so the criminal convictions of the petitioner while they they do not allow you to review the petition or the court's decision in this matter it does allow you to review the legal standard that was used by the board in reaching its decisions it's unclear in this matter what standard of review the board used when reviewing the factual determination that were made by the immigration judge the board states at the outside of it's outside of its decision that it's applying the clear air standard to credibility and factual determination and that in over the standard issues of law discretion or judgment decision from the board however blends questions  law and factual determinations seemingly applying a dyno standard to both and i will point out that this decision from the board is different from the decision that you that was argued before the score in gmo versus bar that decision was issued in november th the board in that in that decision actually specifically stated that they were reviewing the immigration judges the likelihood determination by using a clear error standard the board not do this and the decision sudan this should just that the board finds a clear error of the immigration judge to be they relied on suppositions not facts to reach a decision yet the board does not actually discuss the factual determinations found by the judge or why they were mere suppositions using the gmo vs bar decision that was issued on november th by the score the petitioner can clearly demonstrate that in this matter the written decision of the immigration judge did on merely on his belief of country conditions in south sudan but in fact relied on incited to the evidence in the record to draw his factual conclusions the board has not shown that those factual conclusions are clearly eroni us or clearly based on a hypothetical chain of events that is not likely to occur the board states that the record does not reflect that authorities or anyone that the respondent fears has the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering on him the board also states the evidence does not support the conclusion based on the respondents ethnicity alone that he is more likely than not to experience torture and south sudan isn't that a sufficiency isn't i mean his aren't they saying i'm sorry isn't that not a sufficient and other words it was just we were looking at the same factual determination and it's just not enough to meet this legal standard but in fact to reach this this conclusion that they've reached they have to reach a different factual determination so the immigration judge and this decision didn't simply state there are gross and flagrant mass human rights violations in south sudan he specifically stated that this petitioner was a member of a minority equitorial tribe and that he was at risk specifically from a government that was controlling south sudan at the time so those are specific factual determinations that were made that the board is now determining making a different determination from the facts but they're not stating the immigration judge committed clear air when finding those facts so they're reaching using if they're using the same set of facts and reaching the different determination that's a fact finding and they're not allowed to do that so what it what about the case law that indicates that it has to be a that it's this particular person who would face the torture as opposed to this person as a member of a group do you do you agree that our case law suggests that that's that's an important distinction well perhaps this would be that that i just didn't that based on the facts presented you could agree with them all but just as a matter of law he had met his burden the question of all of course is reviewed to know so they can reach that determination but the question of him being specifically targeted and having a likelihood that is a specific determination of fact that was made by the immigration judge and can only be overturned if the the board can show that he committed clear error in doing that and in finding that that would be a legal error if if the i g said there's this growth pattern and didn't specifically say it was the tribe the the your client was a member and then the b i said well that's a mistake of law because the a circuit says it has to be particular to that tribe well but the immigration judge decision does does point to evidence that it is particularly to minority equitorial tribes in south sudan now they are human that this this petition has to show that he specifically will be targeted he's done that because of the in the case law for the convention against torture shows that so if he's more likely than not to be tortured his argument that he'll be tortured is based on his ethnicity and then if you look at the immigration judge decision and the evidence that he based that decision on the evidence that he highlights in his decision he points out exactly why based on his ethnicity this person is at risk  as he specifically explains what's happening in south sudan because that's important right what why what groups are involved in the ethnic violence in south sudan and i think the decision of the board in this case kind of overall overlooks that so germany and the jewish people and and germans targeting jew jewish people for ethnic cleansing it's the same situation this controlling party this majority party in south sudan is literally targeting anyone who does well he pointed to the evidence in the country condition reports that these are along ethnic lines what i think is being missed here is this this obvious fact that the ethnic lines are the dinka and everyone else so the obvious in the country condition reports and there are other evidence of specific us telling it to use your example the nazis targeted jews but not necessarily catholics right of course so ok so did the i j find that every at all that i mean does not really more just the countrywide condition than any specific identification of what risk does this particular person face well so that kind of again going back t country conditions there are sixty minority tribes and sudan so for any country condition report to sit in list that that every single tribe is being targeted that's why instead there's this this generic finding that the that the ethnic  lines so i get that but but there's no specific findings that bolster that conclusion as reply as applied to the specific facts of this particular case right but he could have been held a hearing could have found evidence that tied more directly to mr lawson and i'm not sure that that evidence would be available because again there is such in even including mr last who himself is a member of two ethnic tribes so not just one but t o so these ethnic tribes are small there are diverse they're spread out but the fact is that the controlling government the dinka government is seeking to eradicate everyone else so there's that that is the i don't think it matters i think we're kind of focused on the the size of the group and that what's important is that he's a member of a really big group excuse me i don't think it matters that he's the member of a really big group but members these a he's a member of the group and that the judge did find that as a member of that group he is at risk from the government so this was a specific finding this wasn't just you know things are really bad there and so i don't think you can go back because if he goes back he could be hurt well of course anyone who goes there could be her but this was a finding that this this petitioner himself because of his membership in a minority equitorial tribe was at risk from the government and he he highlights the evidence he  the immigration judge states that he reviewed everything that was provided to the court and exhibits fourteen and fifteen and reaching his determination some of those are articles regarding specific violence against tribes in south sudan so that would demonstrate that the immigration judge considered the evidence that mr less to specifically would be targeted and again the board the board seemingly ignores that evidence and draws its own conclusions and drawing its own conclusions it's committing prohibited fact finding i'm going to reserve the rest of my time for a bad things are happening everyone is killing everybody everyone's raising everybody and therefore if i go back to chances are that something bad can happen to me the immigration judge granted the petition for the application for the convention against torture the board reversed the only difference forth was legally insufficient to watch justify capital action the difference may be the subject of an academic law view article but we would somebody here in the real world it really does not make a difference whether it's clear air or legally insufficient proof either way to get to the same spot every court including this one and jamie has held that and again the attorney general has great sympathy for people who are facing i'm still strife in their native countries that this generalized violence  and what what else could an individual like last who presents if if the country conditions report describes the situation where the majority is systematically and i'll just use the word torture prove up that he is a member of that minority group what what more could someone in that position do to convince someone that i'm going to be tortured upon return if you want to talk about genocide  brought up nazi germany earlier of other examples maybe rwanda perhaps and perhaps some other of what's an instance where the government was systematically specifically targeting a specific group then that conceivably might  be a potential claim for the convention against torture that does not appear to be the case here the general civil strife everyone killing everybody else i mean i thought it just thought this was the finding in the country report that it was the majority who was it was along ethnic lines and that there was a there was a line between the majority of the minority tribes and it was the minority tribes that were being targeted well what's the difference between general and i guess i'm trying to push here on what this difference between general of the convention against torture there has to be targeting of a specific group the minority i mean that just is not sufficient there are provisions of the immigration nationality act that would allow generalized groups basing civil lower that is that has to come to the state the state department has to identify that as a as a process or course there is no strategic intent requirement for those provisions and so it is a matter of fact the state department did allow people from south sudan to apply in two thousand i believe that i was parents came over that's not quite in the record but but he is trying to use the convention against torture as an end around to that process because the convention against torture does require a specific intent like your particular tribe is being is going to accept him so i just wondered if that's why there is always the well i there was an appeal if in fact he was going to go to one place why there's an appeal as to the south sudan finding when if that had just remained action and the board in this case did articulate the correct standard view clear air for factual findings and dana will review for everyone else which is a very basic standard review and we actually hear this type of situation rather often whe opinion they risk they say the respondents claim is based on predictions of future events and the evidence does not show that each step in the hypothetical chain of events is more likely than not to occur prediction of future events is a fact finding right events is the fact but whether or not wouldn't it have been at least been better for them to have said it was clearly iranians for the i j a to have found if they had the benefit of the g b decision i mean i'm sure i've no doubt that's what th would have said so i mean but i mean the board i mean these were i mean the board is big it's their fifteen members i mean not all of them will use the same language to get the same point yes i suppose it would have been better if the  made it made a specific clear apparently they did not hear where they've based their ruling on sufficiently the evidence but as we point out in our in our brief whether or not a factual finding is predicated on nine speculative evidence whether whether you had the factual no new facts or evidence in the motion to reconsider a motion reconsider just based on asking the board to reconsider this issue and that it's already made the issue that would have been before you after that is the exact identical to the issue that's before you now once the reconsideration was tonight in my opinion that we have exhausted all necessary remedies that we need to before coming to you and asking you to remedy the issue the government seems to argue that there is no difference  between the board are drawing conclusions or speculating on the evidence that that's that it can be reviewed as to novo standard because it's a question of law but in fact  would be a likelihood finding and those findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard so the determinations that were made from the immigration judge should only be overturned if the board finds that the judge committed clear error and making those findings so the board is to make a decision based on the factual determinations that were made by the immigration judge then apply the law if they instead want to make their own factual determinations they have to state that they are using a clear error standard in overturning the factual determinations are made by the immigration judge they simply don't do that the government also stated  using the convention against torture as an indoor out and to to be able to stay in the united states that's simply not true it's the albany relief afforded to him at this point in the proceedings he has exhausted all other relief and remedies there is no way for him to go back to south sudan and then to seek refugee status a new he simply can't do it so he can't go back be threatened with torture and then again the seek to be gay and granted refugee status in the united states it won't be granted he doesn't meet the standard so the only way that relief is available to him is through the convention against torture what about the three the board's opinion they talk about  right and they could say that as a matter of course we lump them all together and then drawing a final conclusion is of is is is a legal error but that ignores the rest of the judge's decision and the rest of the judge court appreciate your appearance today in arguments the cases submitted and will be decided in due course