throughout this court should hold that israel is not subject to the persecutor bar and remand has not got application for its education on the merits for the following two reasons first the immigration judge improperly shifted the burden of proof to israel under eight c f r section twelve forty point eight and there is no substantial record evidence in the record that supports the applicability of the persecutor bar and this case  counsel the very regulation you cited ins as the evidence indicates that one or more grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply all the government has to show here is that based upon the affiliations that your client had that the government has meant that rather minimal bar that it may apply you don't have to prove that these things happened they have to show that it may apply and then your client had to show that it didn't your honor this court has long held in the b a s well that mere membership in an organization if anyone to persecute it's insufficient to bar someone for relief violations all this shows is that israel was a man and a member of the security forces that had a bad reputation if it's not sufficient for the bar to apply just on mere membership what about its assertion force at that time would have engaged in or pushes peace was not just mere membership they were trying to put almost as a sense that it was so bad so widespread that it is a fair inference that he had to have been involved in some persecution national police your honor the record says that certainly any member prior to nine hundred eighty four would have been involved in these human rights violations however here is really joined that's statement is not applicable in this case so another fact you're saying the record did show he was in that time period correct the incidence outlined in the reports in this case all fall outside that time and place of israel service each element of the persecutor bar could be met before placing the burden on the applicant to rebut it under their regulation following boediono before the immigration judge shifted the burden to israel under time that those incidents outlined that are shown in the report i must've looked at different material and you did because what what i saw indicated that when he was in the first brigade there were whole bunch of human rights violations that occurred contemporaneous with his involvement with respect to a lot of italian same thing the national police he was in there for five years the same thing and the bird indicated at the beginning of our discussion all the government has to show is that the these things may apply it does not have to prove them and we have it's unusual to have three of these kinds of organizations sometimes you get cases with one and there's an argument about that but you've got three of them three of them with horrible human rights records your clients account of what he did in each of those organizations is possibly just inherently unbelievable i mean you know he was a member of these things one of the maybe i don't know but at least the government has met this many apply the standard has it not well your honor he was there he testified that he served in the armed security forces and salvador all three security forces however here the immigration judge gave an adverse credibility finding based on well he said i thought he testified that he was he was there when some of this stuff happened but he didn't participate no your honor hit israel did not testify of being at the time and place  report submitted by d h s in this case fell outside the time and place of where he was serving as conceded he was there that time a place of high frequency that might be enough to shift the burden  immigration judge said that israel had engaged in persecution when he had engaged in combat against guerillas based on their political opinion however has been long held on the civil war is not persecution and that  legitimate governments are allowed to exercise self defense against against insurgents council it's up to you do you want to be your time for rebuttal yes i'll be reserving the rest of my time you're  widespread petitioner distinguished himself by being a member of three particular groups and once the evidence can you respond to to your opponent's assertion that the timeframes of the alleged violations and were documented do not coincide with his service can you rebut that with some cites yes your honor ed page two hundred thirty nine of the administrative record this bears were is back to his service in the national police he testified that he was stationed at a city or a town called n page nine hundred twelve one hundred thirteen of the administrative record there are certain rights violations i described broadly to the national police and at those pages there are specifically some there are some massacres attributed to this battalion it's not entirely clear when when the petitioner left the battalion he testified to november eighty one there is some evidence that he left in october eighty one there's also a letter in the record that he left in december eighty one now december eighty one is unique because at that point that battalion committed the massacre at elm is built a thousand civilian slaughtered  women who are pregnant had their stomachs slit open it's not only out of the bird seems to be that you have to show that the bar may apply what case law if any would you rely upon do help us  understand just how much proof the government has to show specifically tying the petitioner to the atrocities that were committed in direct response your question there is a recent twenty seventeen board of immigration appeals presidential decision matter of amma as in mary v as in boise is in cat that's twenty seven i n n decisions i think it's page thirty five a that that that proposition that service in a location where a unit engaged ok in persecution during the time that occurred suffices to indicate in that same opinion the board describes the burden is quote not particularly onerous and the words i council relied heavily on an overseas lynch in radio is a rather distinct factual case there was no evidence in that case that the terrorist group used arms which was an element of the statute alvarado the elements of purposeful involvement and purposeful assistance in that respect and this is this case the evidence indicates that those elements are satisfied are there any appellate cases that find that burned by the government is met when there is no specific evidence of any involvement in any particular violation transaction or master or but it's based on an inference that he was there or she was there or serving this particular force or something again you again it is nothing in any circuit or in the board decisions that says that you have to have direct evidence by an eyewitness that pretty subpoenaed that's correct your honor and indeed i mean that would just come down to a function of record keeping and how good the regime is in keeping records it in desirous of keeping records and of course one would presume that that person is their regime such as these branches of the salvatore military would not really have any incentive whatsoever to commit to what do you draw the line between mere membership if and the question is what was what was the petitioners role and what was the positions role in light of the record evidence if in this case the petitioner were merely a haircut or to use a federico example that's me remember if the petitioner were a doctor you know in any helps to help the soldiers recover from moon's not might be a member but here petitioner testify it was credited that he was an active soldier a regular soldier who helicopter into battle and the record evidence shows that in such a wreck that soldiers regular line soldiers almost certainly would have been involved in such persecution and that's what ties the two together and that's what allows this is really evidence that that battle that he admits to having been involved in a helicopter involve human rights violations there is not your honor but there there is again  there's a the record evidence is that soldiers were quote certainly involved that's well beyond indicating in if i could make a point where was i think is rather important one again this is a petitioner who is seeking relief from removal in the burden under the i in a us see eleven twenty nine a c for a is at all times on the applicant for relief from removal that burden never shifts to the government in any respect including the persecutor bar wait wait wait occurs is when the evidence indicates as it does here that the persecutor bar may apply not that it does apply then to the british or there's an additional burden that he otherwise might not there how could how could a petitioner once he's found have been a member of the organization at a time place where things happen how could one ever prove the negative that your she was not involved or didn't have a high enough ranking other than testifying that all i did was x never did it what else could one do for a credible terse testimony certainly would suffice evidence that he played some some atory role such as i was a haircut or i was a physician i was on medical leave and here are the records to say that i was nowhere and i was in the hospital when these atrocities occurred that's the type of evidence that would absolutely enquires a particularized evaluation but it does not require trigger pulling our personal involvement but mere af we have since had membership in an organization is insufficient to satisfy the exception so i famous footnote that let's let's look at the continuum of conduct let's look at what the evidence is as to this particular petitioner as against the record evidence as to what these organizations did or in fact may not have done again you are is this is this is not a case where we have a petitioner who is in the salvadoran military i do during the civil war this is much more than that this is a petitioner who voluntarily enlisted in two of the most infamous units  national police in the outlook cattle battalion in also sort of the national police week which was mandatory military service but we have three units that really distinguished themselves in the twelve year civil war where at least fifty thousand  we have a new distinction all right here we go honor here there is no evidence that israel ever was personally involved or assisted in the persecution of others as as a respondent will have people leave in response to the purpose purposeful involvement and personal assistance and here there's just no substantial evidence of what we do with the supreme court's real discussion about a continuum we look at the whole pattern in cases like this we usually have one entity involved here we have three each one of which has been damaged by human rights organizations what role if any should the involvement in three these country against insurgents the first of all i see and so this court has found that even acts in civil war are not necessarily persecution and that it was the line between responding to rebellion and persecution well i think that's where it comes back to the showing that the specific individual was involved in at a time in place so that they purposely assisted in some type of persecution persecution so it's of somebody who were involved in the s s for example in world war two that was certainly a government sanctioned entity did lots of horrible things is it your position that if somebody was a long term member of the s s that the government would have to show specifically trigger pull here or there or other horrible acts in order to apply that the persecutor bar yeah and i think that would show that there is at least some that is that that person was present which in this case these are just generalized reports where they don't necessarily indicate that israel has a question by my colleagues