also like to welcome us we've got some high school students here we're not going to do anything different from what we ordinarily do so you're just going to watch the real thing so here we go we've got one case a minute on the brief single bar we've got down and the total time is ten minutes so when it gets to two that's when you are we'll try to help you but keep track of the clock thank your honor and i understand what for the oh i there you go in fact we just  just case needs to be heard and considered under that premise under that understanding under that reality right and the immigration judge found credible so we take everything you said as the truth we're counting you know what do you know the hard part is whether he's been able to establish a connection to the original sort of investigation and then conviction of the killer of his uncle and he thi he believes that is connected to mr again dini and as mr wood gandini in his revenge that's been responsible for the killings and the threats and the i just said i'm not convinced me that there is a connection sufficient to warrant asylum even though the i j a is a was willing to make the family group so tell us why there's enough evidence here to make the connection between mr gandini and the killings and threats well the benefit of the present day is that we have no evidence that was reason motion to reopen mr mr daley on daily owns nephew nine years old being slashed in the face or mutilated by by a pair of pliers a group of men came up to him on the street and just went out on his face and and then proceeded to say we're going to we're going to kill mr daly on we're going to kill your uncle and we're just waiting for the orders and that was in two thousand and sixteen your honor ten years after mr de lay on d absolutely no evidence of any other reason why someone would would go after this nine year old child to send a message to my client who hasn't been there for ten years i don't i think it's been talked about that this is a random act that these  e a series of unfortunate events but i think that that's just not looking at everything and and in reality i don't i think they did the daily on daily own family would have to be one of the most unlucky families in history to have apparently serial murderers going after family eleven time in two thousand and then again in two thousand two they were delivered to petitioners mother and they said mr daly on daily own is the next to die and there were ten threats over thirty days the family understandably was upset and they tried to get to the police the police did nothing and this was all set forth and and in my client's testimony at the immigration court and they cut the phone line after thirty days and skipped town to try to to try to hide from this and you know eventually it came it came back again in two thousand and eleven and my my client's other family member was was shot a shop and it was my client's my client's uncle was shot in his own shop and his nephew was shot also and my client's nephew was was also shot left to die survive they didn't take anything they didn't take anything from from the two thousand and eleven murder they don't take anything from the two thousand and two murder the what i mean is these weren't robberies these were apparently random killings that that's that doesn't add up when you look at the fact that mr dandini stood up in open court in two thousand and said i may be going away for a while and kind of a question yes so the thing that sort of jumps out at me is who is gay indeed and if he's got all of these folks that are willing to do this these terrible acts of violence is nothing that says that he's alive that he's in custody that he runs organized crime ring that part of it you know the sort of scorched earth kill everyone is horrifying and it seems not random unless that whole area is a war zone but and maybe it is but my concern is who is he and what is the nexus that gives him that kind of power to continue to do these these things there's no evidence and if he's so powerful and can do all these things it seems like that would make it easier to be able to discern his connection or his whether he's alive i think the fact that these murders are happening and these attacks are happening as evidence of who gandy money is i don't think there's any other reason for the attacks and so true we don't know is he part of some cartel is he you know who not we don't know on this record are concede that we don't know who he is but we do know that he stood up and said you're all going to die when i go when i go away for what for what you've done in getting the sentence and convicted and and then after that my client's family has been killed and my client has been directly threatened so i don't know who he is but he's dangerous i mean these things are happening and the only logical reason they started happening after two thousand and i don't there's no reason to think that all the sun became you know a different place after two thousand but there was a pretty significant lapse of time between the in the st killing and some of the threats and then the later events doesn't that in your inference might still be a reasonable one but doesn't that lapse of time suggest that the words inference might also be a reasonable one such that i mean because it is you have to show that your view of the evidence is not only reasonable but that it's compelled by the record right  and i think that is a question more for the immigration judge we need to show that this there's a reasonable likelihood of success if it goes back to their immigration judge and the immigration judge said no no i mean he this isn't substantial evidence reviews so you need to i'm not sure about that as a standard i think the problem is that the board applied the wrong standard so we don't we don't know what the board said we the board said it c conclude as to whether or not my client had a sadness which case i think the again the standard as far as i'm aware and my understanding is not that we have to show a complete compelling evidence but that we have to show a reasonable likelihood of a change outcome that if this came on front in front of the immigration court again and the result could be different i think that is that there's a different standard for a motion to reopen that's my understanding and if i could reserve unless there's more questioning no why do you reserve and you'll have a chance to respond thank you good morning your honor just may it please the court jonathan ross for the attorney general the attacks that mr daly owns uncle and stepfathers faced are heartbreaking as are the threats that his family members record compels a country or result in terms of review for the board's denial of the motion to reopen that this court reviews for an abuse of discretion to show that the board acted arbitrarily or contrary to law not even sure  likelihood of a different result but i can't really remember how strong a likelihood has to be i don't think it's used to describe this court reviews that portion of the board's decision for abuse of discretion on a motion to a motion to reopen the board but i appreciate the leg up as you put it however the fundamental question here and if if the court's attention is specifically on the motion to reopen is whether the evidence that that mr daley on put forward met the standards under a matter of calais low and as as the score has upheld in numerous decisions that is the proper standard and that that case that that looks to specifically whether or not  after matter of kolo specified that there is a certain likeliness a reasonable likeliness that's required however in specifically in the context of an already adjudicated motion a motion to reopen of an already a the standard that the court uses that the board uses to review that case is places a heavy burden to show that the outcome would change in that case but here he has not presented evidence to show that likely to change we would put heavy burden unlikely to change together there are almost fighting with you so you have a heavy burden to show that something in the much lower standard likely to change to be the standard a little bit complex involves not just a rat but the mutilation of a child with wires i mean that seems to go way beyond the sort of thing that we would attribute to random street crime violence robberies anything like that i mean that's way up there on the horrors how do you explain that away as not consistent with what the petitioner is alleging yes your honor it's definitely graphic and heartbreaking as as i said previously but to your honor's question and if i can just as a point of clarification this is this attack occurred in two thousand and sixteen the one to which your honor is referring  attacks this is hack in question was for for lack of a better term it didn't reference any other any of the other attacks or the other cases and and as much as it may have been a yes your honor he did reference the petitioner however if you think someone's going to give a whole laundry list remember this remember this remember this remember this is what you're saying the government is saying that the burden is still on mr dooley even as he is a good knowledge several times his these proceedings and before the immigration judge he has nothing more than a gut feeling then a subjective inference that this attack occurred because of his family ship because of his because of his family his does not the burden is still on him to link these these at to show a connection between these attacks that occurred over the span of eleven different years and that are no way connected in any other form that that don't show what a don't reference those cases what bothers me about this case is that the i j a i think came to a decision that we can't touch if we look after him and we're waiting for orders from our superiors which suggest that they're being directed by somebody to do this is that going to be enough for the i j a just say you finally establish the connection i cases though in terms of the original merits denial there was three physical attacks with two verbal threats on the motion to review the only thing that changes instead of  name and sang we've got some people up stairs who are telling us what to do and as soon as we get the word being go that's not just one more attack it's an attack you know we're being directed by somebody else yes you what and that is that is a question that the board addresses and the board as the gate keeper as as the body that has the ability to decide on these issues the board in which this court reviews the board's decision  and only the immigration judge's decision to the extent that it acts expressly adopted by the board which in this case the board did not expressly adopt any portion so only the board's decision is up for review that's correct yes your honor so the court reviews the board's  case nexus mr de leon did not know the identity of the persecutors of the people that harmed him much less their motives because this evidence didn't speak to motive at most he has an inference and an inference alone  acknowledged today a gut feeling a subjective belief is not sufficient to show that the record compels a contrary result or that the board aerate in denying the motion to reopen and i ask you before you run out of time if we were to remain and would it be open to the board to revisit the question of whether a family constitutes a particular social group in light of the more recent decisions from the attorney general in your honor to as you address your question ma'am please have additional time thank you very much  s the court is well aware matter of l e a did change the context of family based particular social groups nationally if this case was remanded then the cognize ability would again be at issue in this case particularly because the board did not decide the cognize ability of this issue of the family of the particular social group it was just assumed denying on this positive ground of nexus because  immigration judge said this is a stale case this is whatever happened with dandini that's over there's not been any recent threats nothing since two thousand and eleven and then boom we have this new attack on this child with pliers and with this threat so this is this is inference of nexus we keep hearing that there's no there's nothing here to there's inferential evidence of nexus and people are convicted all the time on and on on inferential evidence and on indirect evidence and that's on mean that's that's that's an open question if we were a man but that's not yet been determined is not before us ok thank you your honors i think both sides for their arguments daily on daily on versus mar submitted for decision the next case martinez would regas versus bar