there are four main issues in this case has there been past persecution is mr goodman hernandez and i understand that you're having problems speaking but could you try and talk into the mike i'm really not here there that i think i hear it now we believe that there are four issues in this case has there been past persecution has is mr goodman hernandez a member of a protected social group has there been government acquiescence or involvement in the torture and is he safely able to relocate mr grossman hernandez was sixteen years old he was working in a field a man came up and shot his father people who resist criminal cartels in latin america where the come i mean leaving aside whether that's true because our case law doesn't seem to recognize it much or at least in a very discrete fashion where is the criminal  who had his father shut was there's evidence that he's growing marijuana and there's no reason for him to want that land the immigration judge says this was land that was only working for substance subsistence farming there's no reason that someone would want that land if they were going to use it for something more lucrative that seems to be what's going on here there's evidence that this man was involved with he had a lot of money he had trucks he had nice houses he had a  an entourage of armed guards and he worked closely with the police officials and there is also evidence that and i think your caller testified to this that the reason that it wanted to engage in violence against the father was because he wanted to take over the form because he was as your client said greedy is that a protected ground if if if your neighbor is is greedy and violent are you the therefore being persecuted are protected ground i believe that criminals are greedy that the cartels in mexico are greedy that the cartels that wan take the land to grow drugs so that they can make money so that that is greed but when it becomes criminal greed and and someone resists it works tell me where the resistance is in this case it when at least as i read this record there doesn't seem to be a history of either your client or his father resisting demands again i'm not sure that's a social group but i want to find out factually it with the evidence is there there was a point and and i my client was sixteen i believe may have been fifteen right there there was a point so i don't expect that he did i'm trying to find out were his family had been resistant i would say that my client resisted because when the police tried to put the murder on somebody else that my client did not believe had done it he resisted that and the police slapped him and threatened him because of that so i think that was that was resistance and then let him go yes we are getting back to the original question where's the evidence criminal doesn't equal cartel which is the evidence of cartel i think that of course drug cartels are hard to trace but if someone is growing drugs in in mexico they're selling them somewhere and there's a just a well known fact source for sure we're supposed to get you dish on notice of the fact that all growers of marijuana in mexico are members of cartels i think in this case it's there's a little bit more than that because of the connection with the police and well but criminals are corrupt police are corrupt i suppose so the question is this record even doesn't have your client saying that the bartolo was a member of a cartel as he believes that he was he doesn't say for sure well you know there's a there's no i'm trying to find any evidence in this record that the fifty he murdered was a cartel member the the evidence is my clients testimony that they had all the the signs the outward appearances of a cartel member  he he did he did say that and the greed the greed is a part of being a drug dealer of being a cartel member they'd they do it for greed for money why not no doubt th cartel members can be motivated by greed and still and you can identify a force later i'm trying to trying to find it also in his statement initially and i don't find anything in there about him contending that bartolo was a cartel member in fact he says he was a cousin of the applicant's father here so it's a i guess what i'm trying to find out is what what would compel the i j a to conclude that this was more than a family feud i think the the connection with the police and and the show of wealth that  and the fact that that he went to the trouble of if that's the right word he went he shot somebody he shot and killed someone which i think we have we have a lot of cases where one fairway member shoots another one and they're not necessarily cartel members they may be so i'm trying to our standard is is the evidence such that a reasonable finder of fact would be compelled to find differently than the i j a i think that given what have we how he's lived his life after that he he hid in tijuana for a long time he's come to the united states many times also with regard to his testimony and his statements he has brain damage step on this accident they have that doesn't that doesn't help us on the on the connection issue in other words i'm sure that he suffered because we've you see your father killed you will surely suffer the question is still can we can we tie that to a protective ground i think i think that we have to we have to believe it if you i believe in this case and  believe that that this is tied because of the other evidence because of the fact that he wanted to take some land that wasn't necessarily productive because of his relationship with it was produced probably was crime marijuana burden of proof and in this case he testified from the transcript that he knew that the police were friends with bartolo and that the police brought him in they had a suspect and they try to have him t that but that's it to go from there to then infer that because of those two pieces of evidence that somehow the mexican government including the police would therefore from those two sets of facts  honor and i think for a reason the fact finder to look at this record what they could have concluded was the police did have a suspect and they tried to finger and and capture that killer so i think you can look at the facts two ways i don't think we're reviewing this record to know but we're looking at it for substantial evidence and i think a reasonable fact finder collect at this and say the police had a suspect they tried to get him to close the criminal case regarding the suspect i think it goes to his fears of some of those instances where because he was deported i think he's been deported at least four times from the record i'm not entirely clear the number because he used a different area my question is if having returned several times sometimes in voluntarily yes and not having suffered torture that tell us what is reasonable what is more than reasonable what what what level of fear of torture yes your hon being deported but as your honor points out he returned voluntarily also a number of those times he wasn't only deported and that undercuts his the reason most of his fear and his ability relocate with the mexico and i think i think he's even there right now but from what the record just i think he was deported in mid may of two thousand and sixteen and be too sure we can't be too sure in this case your honor but best we can tell you he did make voluntary trips back as well from this record  strange record for us we hear he's been deported since two thousand and sixteen destroyed and so we're worried about future persecution or torture with no evidence about what's happened to him since two thousand and sixteen yes or i don't know there's not much we can do with that because that's the way the case comes to us but it's it's sort of us it's sort of a strange posture in the us well the strange thing about this case is that they did follow  have a second shot fair fair enough your honor but yet so that but that was strange when i was viewing this record myself when i when i know that he is actually not in the country for that reason you know just take a brief moment to address also the p t s report is it could he have really gotten that report while he was in detention i mean the condition existed obviously it's not a new condition but could he have gotten the diagnosis while he was in detention we believe so you're on  he's been in proceedings for quite a while and this diagnosis has been an ongoing condition since at least one thousand that it's not a new condition right i'm just i'm wondering whether or not the fact that he was in detention bears on whether he reasonably could was showing here that tried to do it while i was there for the hearing but afterwards but i think sometimes when people are in jail they can't produce evidence as quickly as they might otherwise right but in this case he was actually able to go for hearings he was able to submit country reports  it says both your honor says it needs neither printed material nor previously unavailable unobtainable so both again go well the case was about an average credibility case and the reports that he was able to submit in that case were medical reports and a polygraph test and in both of those cases they would have undercut the adverse credibility finding and this court still upheld the denial of a motion to reopen and go out because in this case as i understand it the r j found the testimony credible yes your honor so ok i'm just trying to figure out what the p t s d diagnosis would have added to the testimony you may have demonstrated lack of competency but it's hard it's hard to believe it would have added anything to the testimony right there i think they did consider the severity of the harm based on the p t s d diagnosis because of his own testimony in his attorney's testimony and statements made during the hearings as well whether any efforts  hard to taint because he'd been deported in the reinstatement order these things typically happen pretty fast when there's a previous remove order and then that gets reinstated so that's why i think you should move fairly quickly in this particular case  you there were three times that we tried to bond him out and he was denied bond each time we thought that the p t s d diagnosis was most important as evidence of past torture not necessarily as evidence of this competency but as past harm that p t s d in itself is an injury it's it's not like a cut or bruise but it's certainly an injury we thought that was the diagnosis i'm just thinking that that's an interesting way to try and perfect different kind of injury than is usually recognized by the persecution cases but in fact the persecution case of seem very hard nosed about the fact that there needs to be and that there that's the problem all right thank you very much thank you both here argument has been hernandez versus sessions is admitted it will go on to united states versus