good morning you're on the court my name is diana chamberlain and i represent the petitioner timothy francis in this case along with his this case is about the torture and persecution in this case the agency denied the application for failure to satisfy the burden of more likely than not however the agency committed clear factual errors in reaching this decision first is that enough  standard of review is extremely rigorous we can grant to petition only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion  stuff on the other side that's correct your honor the evidence must compel the conclusion in this case the clear errors that were made by the board evidence that substantial evidence did not support their factual findings most particularly with respect to the expert witness they said that his opinion was that torture was a real possibility or just a real likelihood and actuality what he said is that when the government learns of timothy's objections to khelein as a form of punishment that he will most say you know it could it could depend it depended on whether the nature of the clothing and how many strokes i'm all kinds of things that are completely unknown proved he did acknowledge your honor that that those conditions would be taken into consideration in the case by case basis but his ultimate conclusion was that a caning sentence in addition to an already significantly lengthy prison sentence is imposed merely to degrade to have to punish for his to exactly what type of caning constitute a cruel and unusual punishment or torturing like that right now did the depend on you know the type of possibility but what the expert was very clear about is that in his opinion once the singapore government knows that timothy has been objecting to going back because he opposes caning and is afraid of caning that in this tit for tat mentality that is  the singapore and culture and government that they would impose that caning sentence to punish him for his opinion and for his title that that sort of folds into their claim on withholding because the agency also found that there was no  overturn that because your argument is that because of his political opinion which the agency found it wasn't because so i guess they seem to run together a little bit that would lead into my next argument your honor that the agency committed clear a evidence does not support that factual finding then it cannot stand and in this case both that b a and the immigration judge completely ignored the experts testimony that the additional sentence of caning will be imposed because of his imputed political opinion they'd never discussed that at all in any of their decision making process that because they will learn of his opposition to caning that is why they will impose the caning sentence bus it takes that beyon turning back to the withholding argument because the agency wholly ignored the evidence and the record of a mixed motive their application of the one central standard reason for asylum also constitute a clear error what they what suppose this is not your client's case but let's suppose that someone you know robbed a bank and then fled the country where they had robbed the bank and we know that the punishment in that country for robbing a bank use very harsh do we look at the very act as being constituting a protected ground i mean i understand that it plays into the cat claim but i don't understand how it relates to any kind of motivation your honor if if they were merely punishing him for committing a crime that would not become persecution under our law because it's not related to a protected ground but once the punishment becomes a pretext for persecution then it's protected as this court said political opinion your honor for being against caning you know he is making statements as against a policy of the government they would impute an anti government political opinion to him for his and taking statements by fighting this case for for so many years may please the court you know you said for the government i would like to focus on the court's initial statements regarding the standard review here that is an important focus of the term nation of this petition for a view as judge graver indicated that the record must is in other words a record compelling reversal the agency's invasion yeah or so i would like to focus on the torture claim as well and specifically as as was discussed during petitioners time that this claim is speculative claim and the petitioner has to demonstrate multiple chain of events that are more likely than not to occur should he in order to establish that he would be subjected to treatment that would constitute or that he is more likely to not be subjected to would be the individual be subjected to caning in a certain manner as well as being subjected to imprisonment so that's the that was the ultimate and that's how his expert identified what would constitute as torture we can we can apply reasonable inferences  e for example the singapore military hasn't shown any interest in him since two thousand and eight but if he goes back to singapore it seems to me a reasonable inference that show that it's more likely than not to occur and you'd have to show that it's more likely than not that he would indeed be a wreck come to the attention of the singapore military be arrested and then subject to prosecution the last we've heard that last contact with singapore and with his family from singapore and military w him at all is from two thousand and eight and the significant passage of time believe would in fact it would necessarily reduce the likelihood of his the any attention drop paint that paid to him and usually there is no evidence  conceded that there was no warrants for his arrest no pending criminal charges that he was aware of so that in itself shows that whether or not he's likely to be prosecuted is also where it's unclear if it actually it doesn't appear that he demonstrated more likely than not and then we have to go to the next step he would have to show that if he was prosecuted he would ultimately be convicted as a military deserter he would have to have the opportunity to have legal representation he would have the opportunity to present defenses that  is correct but he's also in any way but he'd also be able to present defenses and explain himself of why he may have left for example i think what was it ever is doing it here proceedings was he stayed stayed here in order to look after his mother so he could simply raise that as a defense and he would have opportunities for appeal so again you have to demonstrate this that that that would more likely than not occur and then i think what was discussed earlier would caning be the punishment assessed it is just one of the many forms of punishments that  assessed for military desertions but it's not mandated there's no indication that there is nothing in the evidence to demonstrate for example the petitioner did was unaware of anyone who had been subjected to caning as a result of milters or sion his experts reason for that t secrecy that there's there's reference in the record to twenty two hundred plus judicial canings and in a year but there are no statistics for military yes that's correct it's based on the secrecy but also again the burden of proof is with the petitioner to demonstrate that the military conducts itself in the same way that the usual canings that are the percentages that occur or the numbers also occur in the military that again that's on the petitioner to demonstrate that he sentence the caning there were still more processes that have to occur again as i'm trying to demonstrate there's a kind of a speculative chain of events the petitioner has to stablish are more likely than not to occur we need to prosecution we need him to be convicted and convicted let me be sure i understand your position the b i held that the petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that he would be subjected to caning at all and if we were to disagree with that what you're saying is we would have to remain and to the agency to determine whether the nature of caning if it occurred was such that it fit with political opinion of his opposition of caning the fact of the matter is there's no evidence in the record to show that he he held that opinion or let alone that the persecutor here would be that which was the i guess the sort of singapore military would be in any way aware of his  claims one has political opinion and nobody else has to hold your political opinion to have and to be persecuted for having one social group requires a whole bunch of other stuff yes and the record is absent any evidence that either a spouse any political opinion or was a member of a social group but most importantly the focus of these claims are what the persecutor is motivated by to to harm the individual based on this protective characteristics we don't have any evidence in the record to show that the government  singapore the missing important military is in any way aware of his political pinion or membership in his and any social group and therefore any harm he may be experienced that he did not demonstrate would be accountable to and there are no further questions i i would like to address the point that the evidence in this case compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that timothy will be tortured in singapore first of all the evidence on the record establishes that caning sentences are often handed down in singapore that there's a culture that excepts caning as appropriate forms of punishment and when that sentences handed down it's meted out ninety two percent of the time in civilian cases there is no dispute that timothy is a wall and a deserter from the military there's no dispute that he is subject to prosecution and there's no dispute that the available sentence is a prison sentence of up to ten years and an additional caning sentence in this court at this chorded neeru applied a reasonable assumption to find it's more likely than not that this chain of events will occur when an individual is in the situation then you add on the experts testimony at that he believes it will be very likely that timothy will be caned that he most likely will be caned then you have the country conditions evidence sentence is carried out at least more than ninety percent of the time this meets the more likely than not standard finally turning back to it timothy's political opinion it's infinitely easy for the singapore government to learn of his political opinion a simple google search of timothy francis finds this oral argument finds that he's fighting for asylum to be returned to singapore they will likely ask the prosecution why did you not come back for so long he will tell the truth they will know