specific p l o i was involved in any terrorist activity they were on the border of syria and they were they never shot at anybody according to our clients testimony they were never shot at they were bombed at some point either the pill or at least on behalf of the peel yes well and i think that's that's it's not shown in the record who provided that training and i think there's substantial evidence to show that perhaps the syrian he stated that they got struck arafat was the leader of the p l o at the time he was the leader of the palestinian people if you look further right before that answer he was asked who were your commanding officers and he said i don't know he didn't know but he does say that arafat was directing the p l o even if in a very remote way because he was surrounded and something's cut off from the transcript right away that he was he was disconnected and so but there's no evidence to show that he other than that statement that he actually was and our client has no knowledge of whether or not arafat was directing what his unit was supposed to be doing in one thousand nine hundred two he was a twenty two year old who spent three days training in a month and a half there it seems that it's clear that the p l o a in lebanon was a subgroup of the p l o so at least because when he then goes back to germany the p l o cuts off the scholarship right there's definitely a connection between the p l o and the jordan jordan part of the p l a there's now there's a lebanese part there's the syrian i believe even egypt has a branch so if we can when we're talking about the p l o we have to focus on what what are we talking about and yes they're all loosely related to the p l o because they're all made up of palestinian people who who had some point in time supported yasser arafat in some way or another but does that mean that because they are part of an organization that might not get direct orders from them is that a terrorist organization and i don't think the p l o a is should have been considered at least this branch of the p l o that he was and should have been considered a third tier terrorist organization at that time we don't quite understand suddenly now we have a terrorist organization the statute says i mean we know that a group that has a subgroup that is a terrorist organization that the group becomes a terrorist organization the statute says it is the terrorism bar applies if you're in a group that has a subgroup your argument is though that he's in a different subgroup so we have to figure out the statute covers that but it seems like it's hard to deny that the agency had a basis for saying that the p l o was a terrorist organization that the statute applies to that well i think that again though if i think that the analysis they used was wrong i think that they were looking at p l o so because the p l o is a terrorist organization therefore his activities in the p l o a that may or may not have been directly directed by the p l o i think you have an argument that the p l o he was in is not a terrorist organization but if you start telling us the p l o is not a terrorist organization i think you're going to lose credibility when i view it we're not arguing that it's not that it hasn't been considered a terrorist organization more argument is that the p l a is not a terrorist organization the the p l a that he was in was not a terrorist organization at that time in lebanon and he was sent to lebanon yes under the his scholarship but there is no evidence to show what he you know who was actually controlling that and the government i think they didn't meet that  burden but it was a p l o scholarship or am i wrong about that he received a scholarship that was money from the german government that was doled out by the p l o because of his father's relationship with the p l o at the time just like the expert testified that his son could go to the university of denver for free but his son might not have any actual connections to the university of denver this is the same type of analysis where my client our client didn't have a connection with the p l o his father was the member and so he received a scholarship based three withdrew the scholarship but again i don't think it's clear whether or not he lost that scholarship because the p l o said you know hey you weren't following the p l o is orders or if it was because he he defected the army in that supposed to be doing we don't know who his was commanding officer was we know that maybe it was loosely tied to yasser arafat because all of the p l o is were loosely tied to yasser arafat at that time the syrian even the syrian people hillary was but it was definitely we know that this was was at least fifty miles away from the actual fighting it was towards the end of the fighting it was in november of one thousand nine hundred two and if we look at some of these articles that were submitted that are in the record it talks about mr arafat saying how the p needs to fight to the death well his unit was not fighting to the death in fact he testified his unit never fought and never saw combat so it i think it leads to believe that there's evidence that maybe his unit wasn't being controlled by mr arafat you know again because they are loosely connected he's palestinian he was participating in the lebanon war i mean at the time that was the invasion of israel into lebanon that's what he did that act also was not a terrorist organization and act but because he deserted the army i'm sure that the powers that be that do a lot of scholarship said hey you don't deserve this anymore you're not supporting the palestinian cause and i think that's part of the scholarship was to support the palestinian cause not necessarily support the p l o and so deserted it that's the way i would take it but even if the government if you find that the government has substantial evidence to show that this was a tip that the p l o in one thousand nine hundred two in lebanon on this order was actually a terrorist organization we believe that he did by the proponents the evidence show that the pardon applied to him again because he didn't participate in any terrorist activity he was there there was an ongoing conflict where israel invaded lebanon and so he was part of this organization he was part of trying to protect lebanon from israel invasion and then again if the court does find that the bar does apply we don't believe that the i j i allowed him to go to the third burden shifting here which is that he was to show that he knew or should have known that this was a torah terrorist organization and i believe the record shows that he didn't know that he was actually participating if we find that this was a terrorist organization that it was actually participating in a terrorist organization and here is if you make that argument to the b i a that there was a step of the analysis of a script i believe that was put in to our argument  organization and then if they knew or didn't know that they were actually participating in that what part of the this confusing statute are you so i'm actually looking at it in and  what your client be interested in that if the government were i'm sure my client would be ok when we hear from the government you certainly get a chance to thank you good morning honors jeff real men can united states department of justice for the attorney general i have very little to add to our written pleadings but i would point out the new record evidence here compels reversal of the agency's finding that mr did not meet his burden which has gotten lost in this argument of demonstrating that the p l o was not a terrorist organization when mr boucher received his military training and i think what i don't think the issue is whether the p l o is a terrorist organization the issue is whether the p l o lane that he was part of was right and as there are several factors that we point out that show that it was the people i was in lebanon as the military wing of the p l o mr who shows an expert testif terrorism or if you're a member of a group that has a subgroup that engages in terrorism it sounds like this p l a group doesn't fit either of those does it oh it most certainly does if it doesn't engage in terrorism and what's that subgroup that engages in terrorism the p l o is  a terrorist organization that's an historical fact right the peel away is the military wing of the p l o so you are you basically saying it's not really a different thing it's just all the p l o it's a part of it certainly i don't know that subgroup is the accurate term it's like saying the defense department is not a subgroup of the u s government's part of the u s government it was in lebanon as the muscle is the military wing as the boots on the ground for the p l o and it was not congress seems envisioned that there could be terrorist groups with subgroups i mean that's how the statute is written so are you saying something else is a subgroup and this doesn't count as a subgroup i mean you seem to be resisting the idea that it could be a different kind of group with the statute is written that at least four different ways he received military training on the pillows behalf from the military wing of the p l o which was the p l o a there is no evidence and i would strongly point out that there is no evidence that some other group right there that he received military training from the p l o a on behalf of the p l o which sent him there which which directed him to go there the so the terrorist organization  in terrorist activity it's nuff that some part of the p l o is engaging in terrorist activity and he received military training on behalf of the you contribute to a even if peaceful wing of a terrorist organization you are contributing to that organization and that the this court said so in the  other courts have said the same thing can you remind me what we have in the record that's speaks to the question whether the p l o i guess itself directed or authorized terrorist activities as opposed to whatever we're going to call the subgroups that neither the state department nor congress that in ninety two at least had designated the p l o itself as a terrorist organization was not so designated there's there's a point in the record i believe it's a congressional research service report that says that in one nine hundred seventy five the us agreed not to have diplomatic relations with the p l o until it renounced terrorism which it had by one thousand nine hundred two right and oh no no no your honor the p l o didn't renounce terrorism until nine hundred eighty eight and that was found to be insufficient by the u government and it again renounced it in one thousand nine hundred three i thought as of eighty two that that yasser arafat at least had basically renounce terrorism was trying to be a more moderating influence in this dispute and that there were other quite radical extremists groups that were maybe the affiliated with the p l o but the p l o but that he was trying to distance the organization from them i that's why i was asking what's in this record in some other materials that suggest right in the it's two fold and thereafter terrorist activities are carried out there's let's see by by the time mr boucher went to lebanon for the p l o the elements of the p l o and this is a record page also ten eighty eight it believe had long advocated carried out or accepted responsibility for acts of terrorism rather page twelve twenty eight the p l o is a long history of brutal violence against innocent civilians many nations including the united during the one nine hundred seventy s and eighty's knows what the p l o was it was a terrorist organization so a question you may not know the answer to but perhaps you do why are the immigration authorities wasting time of this guy he's been here for decades abiding well your honor we take these matters quite seriously military training military type training is taken extremely seriously to the point that congress does not require knowledge of the nature of the virtue of his military training eligible for relief there was a finding that but for that bar he would qualify for cancellation and there is an exemption regime that the court has recognized in the concave however i'm not aware that he would qualify for any of that but that's not up to the apartment of justice that's a matter for the department of homeland security and to date and this case is a couple years old i'm not aware that there's been any approach to the d h s s and th and you actually answer maybe more directly judge rakoff question which is what is it is there something about this individual that we don't know from this record that indicates why he it's so important that he be removed from the country i am not aware of anything that is not on the face of the record your honor do you do you look at this record and kind of scratch your head in the same way that i think maybe all three of us are which is what is going on here this person i mean and we have the finding the discretionary funding that vote for this party otherwise is somebody who  should should be allowed to remain why why in the world is is the government i mean that's the question i was put to you i didn't get a direct your direct answer that the to the extent that there are exemptions available or exemptions that do exist those so it's a little bit a little a little bit for down the road for him to to to claim any opportunity to for that however well it was if he won this case though he'd have cancellations so i mean he's been pursuing an argument remain for an opportunity for d h just to look at it i don't know that i would have any objection and that is that's not my call as i said the attorney general is not involved in that  but i think first things first that he you don't deny that he's been here for decades not committing any crimes there's no crime we don't know about he has a disabled child that he supports and a family that he supports some of them are citizens i don't deny that he's been here and  as the agency found if there is an exemption out there that he could have pursued any time for the last two or more years again i don't i don't know that  can rule that out one way or the other if if one steals a loaf of bread certainly one should be pursued for decades indeed your honor unless the court has any other ars just to radio reiterate again i don't believe that the record reflects that that the pioli that he was specifically tied to was a pioli that was directly tied to the p l o and that he did engage in terrorist activity we don't deny that he was trained for three days and it looks like according to the record he had three hours of military training for three days and spent a month and a half in appeal a battalion we don't know who controlled that pioli battalion we don't know who gave him mr reaction but i think that looking at the record and the circumstances i don't believe that he was engaged in terrorist activity and i don't believe he should be barred as a result of that for both petitioners could please come for