dollars carrying out traditional law enforcement duties makes him a persecutor we respectfully submit that the board erred as a matter of law because it failed to apply the supreme court's r two part test enunciated in rwanda where oddo versus gonzales and its progeny including kumar versus holder that the persecutor bar requires a particle i's evaluation of both personal involved versus ashcroft and his own precedence that holding that mere membership in an organization even one which in gauges and persecution is not sufficient to bar one from relief there would noted that although such membership  to impose a blanket exclusion on those who come from places be set by civil war and an affiliate affiliated in some respect with one side or the other but this isn't just a general claim i mean the contention as i understand is that he arrested people knowing that if he turned them over to the jailers that they would be mistreated and potentially tortured and that that happened with some of the people that he arrested and turned over why would that not be sufficient to make him a persecutor i was released to assist in persecuting so actually if you look at page ninety one of the record judge they asked him he went on to clarify and i'm going to read straight from the record and when you arrest to somebody did you know for certain what was going to happen to them and he answered no this is on page ninety not know what happened to these people that were arrested were there other comments that he was cross examined with where he said that he was aware that that bad things happened he did indicate there were some rumors this is during civil war and in guatemala so he said there were some rumors that there were some people that were being treated mistreated in prisons so he did indicate there were some information out there that he may have known about that and wrote us response the rallies was against the government the guerrillas those were during the confrontations is a little bit of a leading question by the i j a but but he seems to accept the premise that he understood that during the confrontation when he said that he  did push some people and had to arrest at least three people in the confrontations that he that he was aware that some of those in those confrontations were guerrillas and they would take those people and put them in their own holding cell and eventually they were transferred to the army but he absolutely indicated he would not right somebody just because there were gorillas i mean that's a new record where that there were people in these in these crowds that were gorillas and that gorillas were were being tortured by the army he said yes but he indicated that he because he didn't know he arrested people i guess you never know if you're arresting somebody i mean that's a question that you can never know when you're sitting here only a recipe people who are breaking the law actually doing something on lawful based on traditional  police conduct so i don't i don't think i don't really think that the government has even arguing that he personally ever harmed anybody because of their  an on a persecutory ground he he was not present during any alleged acts of persecution he had no role after the people were detained he was a low level police officer doing his job and during the civil war i mean what the board is doing here is it's a theory of guilt by association basically you're associated with this group which you know they have on page one thousand one hundred and fifty seven talks about  three years possibly as late as two years after his father's death that's correct or any information in the record as to how or why how he obtained this job or why he decided to apply for this position i mean it's more than that surely it is more than coincidental that he joined the force that his father had belonged to knowing that his father had been killed by guerrillas while in the employ of the car i believe i think indicated just was a job that paid and also the house in a place was divided into different the there was a special intelligence unit up and this is based on the government's test evidence the intelligence unit was made up of former military members who were involved in some abductions and assassinations assassinations occurring in that area and he was certainly not part of that intelligence unit within the organization that was involved in this kind of conduct prosecutorial conduct so he wasn't a place he wasn't at the assume that you are a persecutor and that's what this court has time and again said is not appropriate in this in these types of cases oh well forgive me for oversimplifying but in the persecution why the after now a conclusion to the contrary because if that's the standard your honor than almost anyone any law enforcement officer anywhere in the world practically will begin the persecutor officer in egypt automatically officer in irak he goes and arrest somebody for burglary turns them over to the authorities the fun of the sunni the torture so under that standard almost anything could be deemed in assisting in persecution there it could include i mean if it's mind boggling frankly if that's the if that's the standard because there is actually there is an australian techie right who has developed a nap who has scraped the internet all the social media groups all the social media sites that have gathered almost three billion faces and by using this app you can identify the person by their by their image with their name where they live where they what they do if that app gets into the hands of the chinese government or any other government of saudi arabia and they use it to identify people then they're persecutors then that the ap developers are persecuted or on the direction because he assisted knowingly assisted knowing that this technology can be used to actually identify protesters put them in jail and torture i think that would be a very tenuous precedent to be setting at this point if that's the standard should if the person knows or should have known that this technology could be used for some police an organization which was notorious for human rights violations in the one thousand nine hundred and eighty s he admitted that he was involved that he arrested political protesters at protests that he turned them over to others who you knew  beat and killed them no that i don't know which is the record say about the treatment of the three to five people that he said that he arrested with and what he said  they would get arrested and we would turn them over and we would hear about it he would hear about them being killed but he never sought so he at this heard about it was a see it in person is on cross examination concerning the statements he had made t asylum officer said correct that's correct your honor and in that statement of what he had made to the simon officer he distinguish between the people that he arrested and guerrillas who were arrested by others and it seemed from out of the notes are difficult to rebut it seemed likely comment was about the guerrillas and not the people that he arrested and this cross was sort of mushing these two things together well it may have been but that's what that's what he responded to there's a another can more clear statement on page eighty seven but again says they would get arrested we turn them over we your honor that c we he also said on page eighty seven dollars when he was asked also about this interview said serge you remember telling the asylum officer that you knew these people would be beaten and killed but you had to turn them over anyway because it was part of your job and he responded yes turn them over if you hadn't done that those people wouldn't have been at risk of persecution would you agree that in order to find that the persecutor bar applies it has to be the case that someone that he arrested is then persecuted not just that he arrest people and some other group of people happen to be persecuted and there's no match between those two no i think there does have to be a match between the two your honor but i think there's also  that the bar may apply which is there's two parts we haven't talked about here st which is if there's evidence indicating the bar may apply then he actually has the burden to show it doesn't so the evidence indicating the bar may apply may not have  direct specific evidence showing that a particular person he turned over was killed but certainly based on his testimony it's evidence from which an to try or fact could infer that the bar may apply giving him then the burden to show that it doesn't to then he would have had to show that the people who were turned over did not in fact get the nod yes exactly your honor but he you know he just simply denied ever finding out what happened to them which you know honestly are owners of some concern we don't want people  resting to others turn them over knowing they may be tortured so suppose you know someone lives in a dangerous part of guatemala where the police and notoriously corrupt and abusive but someone's breaking in their house and they call the police to say you know someone breaking house you've got to get taken away and they take them away and they do what you know every one suspects that they would use that person now a persecutor and barred if they later come to the u s and claim asylum but that's a that's a obviously different case than we have here that sounds a bit like rick moreover in which the court found that peer self defense doesn't constitute persecution and that that may be the way in which the person was  called they're breaking into my neighbor's house they then persecutor that again is more problematic but again that's defense of others i'm not as familiar with criminal law as in with immigration law but i know there are  if i recall correctly from many years ago you're permitted to be to defend others but if they're throwing bricks through windows and smashing things then because now you're a cop now you can your persecutor if you stop them from doing that well your honor if if you are arresting people turn them over knowing the may be beaten or killed you shouldn't have a job in this country is not obligated to extend large us of of permanent residence or even citizenship here to people who do that and congress has made the decision that it does not want to permit people who actually create other refugees from coming here and seeking for example refugee status if you he said i detain people with drugs in cars a couple of times did your unit ever captured rylance yes my unit did but i never did only the military would capture them what would happen to the people i do not know they would be in the hands of the army you have any idea as to what happened to the prisoners they would get tortured and also if the guerrillas captured one of us they would do the same did you ever harm anyone not so it's is i read that some other  unit was doing this and that seems to be separating him from the folks who are doing the torturing well i think your honor that's because this this treasury guard was notorious for committing human rights violations so i have no doubt that he was speaking about others as well and in that passage what's important is that he did admit in an immigration court that it was me or we that was involved in some of these these activities that no one put any weight on it it does it make a difference whether it's me or we though no your honor because if it's a weed and that that's part of the assisting if it's me it's all i can also be assistance as an assistant and so that's not a particular that doesn't necessarily make a difference here when one thing i'd like to address is he talked about how he didn't have the intent harm is going to be exactly or other it's not it's not they don't have to share that intent it would create a bizarre loophole and providing for things like the defense of just following orders  unless the kind of the panel has any additional questions i think of finished so thank you for your time right so but the government's argument is that now the motive of the person to turn motive is it really doesn't matter what he thought that star argument based on these new cases we're going to impute the person the actual pers have somebody in serbia and during the bosnian genocide where the police officer goes and rounds up two hundred muslim men and they are executed so we do the whole case before the immigration judge assault done we have the asylum officer testify and this is on page one hundred and ninety seven dollars of the record and this is what the court said the court is not satisfied based on the testimony and the shifting once we did the case he said i don't think i don't find persecution here and then he decides i guess that he did i guess i just i'm quite understand you if member of the group making arrests and you know that some people who are going to be tortured are persecuted and you nevertheless continue to make the arrests and turn you know that what you're doing is going to cause this you're helping whether you you personally intend or want them to be persecuted or not but see the conduct the conduct informs th the motive right that's what that scenario that i brought up with the with the with the philippines as the conduct informs the intent the motive if you are going out and you're actually  arresting people because of their race or religion whatever and you turn him over when you know they're going to be tortured then yeah you're going to be you should be deemed a persecutor but we don't have that here obviously i mean this is not what happened here in this case and you have to look at the actual person's conduct happened in this case first of all nobody that he actually there's no nexus number one there is no he may or may have heard something but he didn't actually know that what was going to happen to these people according to the record protesters no he did he arrested them because they had broken the law not just because they were purple protesters they were breaking glass what if somebody what if i know i'm out of time and if i could just go through this real quick thank you very much imagine a police officer police chief and hong kong right now so a student is a student protesters arrested for throwing  molotov cocktail right he goes to the station and the police chief does the right thing he just does a police report police report just like you would and he releases the guy he goes go home then the chinese  intelligence officers come by and they go over the police reports and they find information on this guy they go out and arrest them and torture or detain for whatever under the government scenario the