the calvin christian people are marginalized persecuted ethnic and religious group in iraq in two thousand and sixteen then secretary of state john kerry acknowledged the genocide that happened against not only iraqi christians but also other minorities in that country mr should corey is americanised again he's been here since he was two years old his entire family are u s citizens he has not been back to iraq since he was two years old he does not possess an iraqi id or an iraqi travel document he does not speak arabic he has no family connections in iraq he has no acquaintances in iraq he knows no one in their country he would be a really great shape if they hadn't  his criminal history he can allergists his criminal history and he realizes that that is the reason that he is in the position that he's in today i think the question is the legal issue of whether or not this country  believes that it should send people back to what i believe is a almost certain risk of torture or death and whether or not committing a crime of that nature that he committed should equal a death sentence i think that's what it amounts to for mr corey your honor in this case your honour's excuse me in this case the board of immigration appeals misapplied the law particularly with regard to the burden of proof when  applied matter of j f f and it applied the causal link or causal chain test to the determination of whether or not it's more likely than not that mr should koori would face death or torture if he's returned to iraq in that case in the matter jeff case the immigration court ready and the board dealt with a dominican individual who had suffered from severe mental health  issues and the immigration judge despite the respondent in that case having provided almost no proof or no evidence strung together this series of suppositions that if he were to be returned to the dominican republic that he would at that some point face torture or be every handed because there is no mental health treatment that is available next country this case differs greatly and the court relied almost exclusively on matter of jeff applied that test as opposed to the more likely than not standard which is what's called for by the statute in this case but our standard of review and a case like this i provided a number of independent bases for ready his risk of torture which i highlighted earlier and the court instead of the board of immigration appeals in the immigration court instead of  aggregating those and finding that he was subject to the more likely than not standard this is a brigade of those and they said that these these factors do not add up to a causal link or asked there are some issues we may be foreclosed from hearing may not have jurisdiction here and one of those issues may be determinations of questions affect and determination and as such we would not have jurisdiction to consider it just wondering if you have a response to that i do your honor i do believe this court has jurisdiction i think that the issues that i presented in my brief are are legal issues and constitutional issues whether or not the the proper law was applied i believe is a squarely squarely is a legal issue whether or not the proper burden of proof was used is i believe squarely a legal issue of agree with you there i'm just wondering about this and the sable decision and whether you think it's you know decision that does not apply here for some reason your honor i've actually i actually legal in factual issues and and and when the court does have jurisdiction i believe that the court does have jurisdiction but that most critical constitutional or legal issue that you're attacking here your honor i think it's that the the board of immigration appeals and the immigration judge elevated the burden that mr should koori had to prove when it applied the matter of case as opposed to applying the more likely than that standard what do you base your honor the the matter of j f s case is this this case that that talks about a causal link that there has to be a link and and multiple chains of things that have to happen before you can prove that there is torture or that there would be torture that it's more likely than not that would be there would be torture in this case there are independent multiple independent reasons or factors that that would put mr xi corey at risk of torture or death if he's returned to iraq so it's not the they the cause a link test we have jurisdiction to evaluate constitutional arguments more so than factual determinations think your honor and i would agree that there are some factual issues here the issues though that we're asking the court to decide are and the primary want i think the most important one is whether or not the proper law was applied that is a legal issue it's a constitutional issue i believe it fits squarely within the jurisdiction of the core was not just th the statute calls for a more likely than not standard to be applied in this case the standard that was applied was a causal link chain test that elevates the t the issue is that mr sure so the statue calls for as i stated the more likely than not standard the case that was used to decide this or should corey's case this causal link chain test it it elevates the  and so i the argument is essentially that the the causal chain elevates the burden of proof that he's required to show he's required to show that it would be more likely than not that he would be tortured killed w etc these are independent factors not interdependent factors and the court apply the cork analyze this and looked at these as interdependent factors and applied this causal chain test the court should have aggregated these looked at them as as an aggregate and determine that it's more likely than not that based on the totality of the circumstances that he that it's more likely than not that he would have been that he'll be that evidence is evolving every single day there was just released i think flat earlier late last week two thousand and eighteen religious freedom report which ox that's not the record here it's not correct your honor it's not part of the record i'm just i think agree settled in the kurdish section of iraq that it now he could not your honor i don't believe there's any safe relocation area for him but there was evidence in the record that would however in our brief we we also argued that they the board did not provide an explanation of of that particular issue so they didn't provide a full analysis of whether or not he could safely relocate  iraq so that was an issue that was up for contention that was not dealt with that's are you going to have your full rebuttal time thank you very much respondent this court should dismiss this petition for a view this court's jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and legal issues based because petition was found from of people based on his convictions for an aggravated felony and for multiple crimes involving turpitude now petitioners claim is no doubt very sympathetic however his arguments before this quarter are all either not meritorious and exhausted or actually fail for class for this court to really weigh the evidence and find in his favor which does exceed that that the jurisdiction a limitation st position or superstition or has has discussed whether or not the board disaggregated his claim and in doing so heightened his burden of proof beyond the more likely than not standard for capital action now nothing in the boars decisions or in the immigration judges decision suggests that they were taking his claim in such a piecemeal fashion the board and the immigration judge discussed the expert reports that were filed by the department of homeland security that they found to be more persuasive than the reports that petition the petitioner filed now those experts also discussed all of the factors that petitioner identified that he was a christian that he had criminal convictions in the united states that he was a long term resident of the united states and westernized and they looked at all of those factors together and said those factors are not the factors that put someone at risk in in iraq currently today in two thousand and eight at that time in two thousand me instead the factors that might put someone at risk in iraq are being suspected of being a member of isis being suspected of being a member of the  are also whether or not they have outstanding warrants for criminal convictions in iraq so petitioners longstanding residence in the united states actually exonerates him of those things and the experts you can see on page  iraq whether that person is a member of a religious i or ethnic ethnic minority or not so you see her combining those factors that he's that he's that he's being deported from the united states that he was a long term resident of the united states that he's a religious minorities though she's combining those things you see douglas ollivant does another expert and the da just does that same thing on page eighty page eight hundred and fifty eight he combines christians who have also been westernized and their risk factors wrote reports that talks about how iraq currently is unsafe but they didn't get to any sort of particulars as far as how petitioner would actually be individually targeted for harm which is what that went which is what is required for him to show one of these other problems yes daniel spence is that an individual that wrote a report now daniel smith is a journalist who has lived in iraq the immigration judge as appalled by the board determined that daniel smith did not have sufficient rigor rigor in his qualifications or in his represented in his c v in order to demonstrate that he was an expert so the immigration judges upheld by the board determine that he was a percipient witness reporting on things that he had heard and or heard more that people had told him or that he had seen himself in iraq but that he was not a country conditions expert who was capable of filtering the things that individuals were telling him among a broader understanding of country conditions in iraq but and but the but the but the scenario that daniel heller proposed was that when he arrived in iraq  that any of those those risk factors that petition identified his christianity the fact that he'd been the one thing that's his criminal convictions that he would then be detained and then after he was detained he would be interrogated after he was interrogated he would be transferred to a facility for a long term intention that that that that facility would be one of the facilities in iraq that does use torture methods and then that he would actually be one of the people who are who would be tortured in that facility  precisely the chain of hypotheticals that the immigration judge didn't see and enough and the evidence to prove that that the entire scenario would be more likely than not to occur and so and  fact there were there the government presented several expert reports that refuted daniel smith's claims and instead said stated that that any detention would be only to ascertain his identity and that he would then be released that what the iraqi government is interested in when they detain someone is making sure that they're not a member of the of the whole of the former but this regime and that they're not that they weren't members of part of the reason why it's important that that sort of issue be exhausted before the board is because i can stand here and speculate as far as many different reasons why why they why those individuals might have been accepted as experts in other cases but not in this one instance we know based on this transcript that dan daniel smith had at least three c b s we know that in this transcript he didn't so i don't know if another stevie stevie was in another case you know i think in this case he chose not to appear for of what year so he never defended his credentials in person or telephonically i know that one of the cases references a telephonic appearance in court so he never defended his credentials in this case i don't know if you defended his credentials in another case you know also we don't know what kinds of objections d h just may have raised in those other cases or if they made any objections at all if this course wants to look many journalists you know when that when somebody files for asylum and they present evidence often they're including news reports written by journalists in these countries they're taken as evidence sure that that this journalist has been told her as witness this and has written it down  but it's not but the court doesn't look at that as as though the person who wrote that it has the ability to filter whatever they saw or heard through a broader understanding of country conditions in iraq than these immigration judge and the board went through all of these these these different aspects of his claim and they did discuss them and they discussed them together and and basically the conclusion was the experts say that these people are not at risk that people like petitioners similarly situated petitioner are not at risk from the pm f or from from the iraqi government that's how the experts analyze the claim and that's how the board and the immigration judges in lies the claim claim they they only get to that citation to j f f that's at issue after discussing petitioners claim for about three or four pages so and that discussing all of the different aspects of his claim and why they're finding the experts from from the government to be more persuasive than the expert or purported experts that petitioner put forth and so there's a there's simply no reason to believe that they disagreed with the claim once again petitioner didn't exhaust that the immigration judge had done so but there isn't there is no when you read the decision there's no indication that he said ok i'm going to talk about christians in iraq now now i'm going to talk about you know westernized people in iraq now there's  no sort of separation of those claims he goes through you know these the risk factors that that that that the government i'd done if i had and position as many of those these are the risk factors the petitioner identified and it doesn't seem like there's enough evidence to support that so so you can see that the agency was grappling with all of the factors it seems that petitioners expanding from one citation to one case which was appropriate given daniel smith's interpretation of what might happen to that he's identifying some areas they did discuss that in a plane and there is of course there's conflicting information petitioner presented evidence saying those are ghost towns although they do even even petitioners it evident in petitioner poor didn't provide a reason explanation for not based on the new expert reports however the board explained the petitioner had failed to explain why the experts reports were previously unavailable also petitioners states that they knew that the board ignored it precedents by not reminding based on the country conditions report where the board actually stated that petitioner had met his burden to show that the country reports show that country conditions had materially changed for petitioner but with whether it assigned him the correct burden of proof direct quote from shabby sessions and i think that's precisely what's at issue here with regard to the whole aggregate issue that's been discussed and whether or not matter of jeff and that bird in that case in the application that case elevated the burden of proof that mr should koori was required to prove so i believe that this jurisdiction i believe that the burden of proof was that was applied was improper and i would open to any other questions and if if the court has not and then i will think the court