please the court my name is carl across i'm representing miss and to be an lorenzo lopez i would like a minute for vital time this is a case involving miss lopez's request for political asylum withholding of removal protection under the cat we also present an argument that there has been a pattern of persecution that would fall under two eight point thirteen eight c f r that there has been a pattern in practice of persecution in this case the first issue i would like to discuss is the one you're filing deadline mrs lopez testified and her testimony was found credible the one issue that the government has raised where they believe the court may not have jurisdiction is whether she was informed by an immigration officer that she cannot apply for asylum our position is that the information was credible that it is common based on case law objectively that many immigration officers do not want applicants to apply for asylum or be put in proceedings the reason i brought up the lopez been named as a class action case is that was an action where the government was routinely encouraging applicants to apply for voluntary departure and leave the country even though they were eligible for relief also take note of today of factors in this case are very unique first of all missing and to lean a transgender woman is part of a vulnerable group of people that immediately was prejudice when she entered the united states based on her status as a transgender female sure how that helps you with the one year bar if anything that should make her more sensitive to the fact she might be in a group that is entitled to different treatment when he didn't claim asylum for what would five years not till after she was arrested and served with a notice so it's hard to understand how that's and those facts support the proposition that she came to united states for asylum and  other factors are that she is a literate she cannot read or write in the spanish or english language she has a excepted report claiming she suffers from d generalized anxiety and depression well but that's a report i mean i read the psychologists report it basically is reporting what she told the psychologist the psychologist doesn't make a diagnosis so the diagnose the report simply says these she presents a description that is consistent with certain conditions but there's no testing that i could see there's no reference to the psychologist herself a pining as to your client's condition it seems to be based entirely upon what your client told the psychologist so how is it that the immigration authorities are up are compelled to believe those stories compelled to believe your client's own diagnosis of herself well it was a trained psychologist i would i would hope something that reported this is these are consistent with these conditions but why is that something the immigration court is required is compelled to believe well i believe in this case that the immigration well the immigration judge we believe held her to standard tuning capacitated standard and in this doesn't speak to the question i posed you're trying to argue now that he used a different standard i might disagree as to that too but i'm still looking for an answer to the question of where is it that the immigration judge of the b i accepted concurred in that the diagnosis that you've offered well i know it an issue about persecution past persecution or past torture torture kept apologizing and she believed that the elements the facts she presented were not sufficient  bring guys a number of cases that have come out of this court have testified and demonstrated that the situation for the transgender population in mexico is abysmal was that evidence before the immigration judge what other petitioners may have filed in other cases that may have led to other decisions by this court in the administrative record to seventy two three five there were reports filed regarding came after i don't wasn't no wasn't so you're asking us to go outside the administrative record for this case to have the right to do that i am asking that you recognize objectively the situation as it but in mexico there were some reports in the record yes so what did they show there was the u s state department country reports for twenty eleventh there was the harvard study  demonstrator some news articles yes so what do they what do they show in the record if it demonstrates that this population can too is was remains persecuted and harmed based on their status as chance gender people and it hasn't gotten better but even then in two thousand and eleven the reports indicate they were being harmed and persecuted based on the much east a society in mexico based on the catholicism based on their vulnerability and that continues to this day or what want you save your time for rebuttal are looking actually the we are we actually posted put up at fifteen minutes we're supposed to be ten but so we'll make sure that the government has adequate time to respond catch the reason is that the record in this case simply does not compel reversal of the board's decision well let me ask you this we took a very hard look a very deep as yet significant evidence suggests that transgender persons are often especially visible and vulnerable to harassment and persecution due to their own public nonconform gender she wrote in a authoritative opinion for this cause she went on to say country conditions evidence shows that police specifically target the transgender community for extortion and sexual favors and that mexico's offers from an epidemic of unsolved volatile violent crimes against transgender persons indeed mexico has one of the highest documented number of transgender murders in the world so this is a judge of this court reaching these conclusions for a i would argue that's not just talking about reconsideration of the case i'm talking about reconsideration of judge wins conclusion one condition for in mexico i mean you're using the government is making seems to go along these lines you know we're different way i'm saying it's based on a different record your honor and second that they did not use the term of the term pattern in practice appears nowhere in the case of a nano at least according to my search in that case mexico has petitioner in this case is not neither of those all i'm asking your honor is that this court rejected petitioners very plausible requests that this court really we the evidence i would suggest according to the supreme court statute in this court's controlling president yes it is even that you know the light of heaven donna with which the war did not have correct correct and in light of the record in this case there is documented evidence in this case i mean there there are country conditions reports the harvard study report wrecked his arm of that minimum go back on the on the withholding cling if that's a possibility your honor but i would i would say i would suggest this court should reject petitioners request that the court really weigh the evidence in our been done though there had been past torture that alien had been brutally raped by police in military uniforms and separately by the military in uniforms here there's nothing of that was separately by judge when the paragraph that i read to you is this court's this court's analysis mean you've got to search far and wide before you use language like it's directed to other countries i would not why does the government want to ask to this because of the law your honor the laws that this court may not substitute its weighing of the evidence for the boards the board reasonably did address the record in this case the board weighed the psychologist report the board weighed the country ports the board weighed the harvard reported other evidence in the record and reached a reasonable conclusion based upon that evidence according to the controlling precedence of this court that's the end of the case the the evidence hoping that it can find evidence in the record there's no suggestion that we that you may cast the petitioner's argument in that way but we would have to say that substantial evidence doesn't com the conclusion that the board reached that's not the test your honor the test rather is that the board's decision must be affirmed unless petitioner points to evidence so overwhelming right that compels persecution or torture and actually go it found on the basis of those the record in that case which as judge paez as already stated cannot be imported wholesale into this case that it  trans for transvestite transgender people we don't mean tame that that's not the question whether we believe it's safe or not the question is simply was the evidence wait and here it was you think should be a member of a disfavored group  would suggest that if the record is insufficient even show that transgender folks in mexico are not part of a disfavored group well i think we should look at the record in this case what happened to petitioner in her instance she was she's been transgender her entire life she says let's look at what happened to her and that's why they keep focusing back on this case which is what we're limited to she had four instances of harm the first some bully pushed her in the in the in the eighth grade and i'm sorry for that second when she was in her twenty's a group of men propped up propositioned her for sex and when she was rescued by her brother nothing happened no rapes third the third incident was that when she was drinking with the man at her brother's wedding the man got drunk and propositioned her and grabbed her but her brother arrested her you know there we're talking about future persecution and as i read highs documented numbers of murders in the world i don't want the government why would our government want to send this woman back to those good i'm just confused about the government just said the government is limited by the simply citing this case carry the burden because if you look at the record i would suggest your honor those murders and those that that harm is often directed person sex workers which is not petition that's not what she says that's not that's not what you found in terms of a review of the record enough and on the artist she did or george when doesn't mention sex workers she's quite specific about what is going on in mexico that's consistent you doing is you're inviting us to embarrass this court that's what you're doing because in order to rule in your favor we would have to walk away from judge wins opinion which calls into question in my no position that this is a hard hard case for the government this is a matter of what the law allows if that were true that the court does reach that decision i would suggest the only the only action the court should take is donna which is intervening intervening law however i would say that that's not necessary in this case in light of what happened to petitioner which is essentially no harm in light of her own evidence in this that worst case that the court remained in light of up and down no we don't think that's necessary here because the record doesn't compel that answer again i would say evan dando did not find a pattern in the press was harmed whether it amounts to persecution that's something that we're arguing today but the main issue i want to point out is to return her to mexico would cause future persecution how do we know that he's not given what's happened to her already if we if we don't conclude that the evidence compels a conclusion that was persecution how do you know that will happen in the future will be worse i don't know for sure the evidence compels that conclusion because of her status as a transgendered person because of the language and various case you senator and gender person her whole life correct luckily she's been having the safety of the us to protect herself welsh she's coming in with a claim that she was persecuted in mexico but why don't conclude that those episodes rise to the level of persecution and what compels the conclusion that back in mexico it will be worse than it was for before because the situation mexico has gotten worse and what evidence is there on the record for that again i point to point to generically to reports but haven't pointed to specific so when i look at specifics i find descriptions saying conditions are improving in mexico just as they've improved in the united states there was a change in law in mexico which actually caused a backlash against the gay transgender populations i am focusing on transgender here they are and who have yet to give me a specific answer well the country reports that were filed what looked to me to those the agency concluded that didn't compel a conclusion and i haven't seen anything that compels the conclusion i might have i might have reached a different result myself but i'm kind of frustrated and hearing from you do use generic references what i found in there is a map for example of where chants gender persons have been murdered and it's all over the world with the probably a bigger second country responsible for the murder of transgender behind brazil that there is a influx of cases of transgender people coming to the u s and  rarely do they make it to this court because i represent transgender people normally they're granted by the immigration judge especially after having dano in brings us so right now we have a case that is old five years old and it's difficult to update it within this five years without going outside the record but you have to take note of afghan dano and bring this and the cases that have come out since that time and finally i do see a pattern in practice here and disfavored group where she transgenders are singled out individually in mexico and that they are discriminated against and the disfavored group doesn't have to have that level of persecution as a group so i do see that she is falls into