[00:00:06] Speaker 04:
Our next case is Alvarado-Valladares versus Garland.

[00:01:30] Speaker 04:
Okay, Mr. Cruz, you can come up when you're ready.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
Mr., is it Romnitz?

[00:01:34] Speaker 04:
Can you hear us okay?

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
Yes, I can hear you okay.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
Great.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
Good morning.

[00:01:50] Speaker 04:
You can proceed.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
My name is Carlos Cruz, and I represent the petitioner.

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
I reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the B.A.'

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
's decision, which rests solely on the nexus requirement for purpose of political asylum and withholding of removal, should be reversed based on the following two reasons.

[00:02:08] Speaker 00:
First, the board's refusal to decide whether petitioners suffered past persecution and as a member of a particular social group, deprives this court of meaningful judicial review in this case.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
And second, the board's decision that the only reason for the harm inflicted on a petitioner was a quest for financial gain is not supported by substantial evidence.

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
I have a question on, I think, what is essentially your first argument on the nexus.

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
Even if we find that the IJ's nexus determination was erroneous, can we deny the petition on the grounds that the petitioner's fear of future harm is not objectively reasonable?

[00:02:45] Speaker 03:
Isn't that what our court did in Accio v. Whitaker?

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
Not in this particular case, Your Honor, given the limitations by the BIA's decision.

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
The BIA footnote two provides that it has not ruled on the issue of past persecution or membership in a particular social group, whether we're dealing with past persecution or our wealth family.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
But even if you don't rule, even if that's true, I'm assuming those facts in my question, our court in Ackee v. Whitaker did exactly what I'm suggesting, which is then denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioner's fear of future harm is not reasonable.

[00:03:18] Speaker 00:
But Your Honor, to find future persecution or to decide the issue of well-founded fear of future persecution, one of the primary issues in the case is whether or not that well-founded fear is based on the protected ground.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
So essentially, your argument is the one that Judge Paez made in his dissent.

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
Well, yes, Your Honor, in part.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
But in this particular case, there is no way to conclude that there's no well-founded fear of future persecution or protected ground if the B.A.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
never ruled on the issue.

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
That's one issue that obviously requires room.

[00:03:46] Speaker 00:
And the other is that the board's decision doesn't also address the issue of political opinion that was raised by the petitioner in the case.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
So there are two alternative grounds here.

[00:03:54] Speaker 00:
on which to remand.

[00:03:55] Speaker 00:
The board has failed to address the issue of membership in the particular social group and thereby preventing this court from assessing whether or not he was persecuted when he protected ground, whether past persecution existed or whether there's a- You're talking specifically in terms of the PSG of the crime victims or the crime victims who cooperated with the police because I think the IJ did in fact address the first

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
protected a social group relating to his family connection.

[00:04:21] Speaker 03:
I think that was fully analyzed by the I.J.

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
Yes, I.J.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
Burke did address the issues and he does lay out the reasons for why the petitioner wasn't able to meet his burden for political asylum.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
But this court is not reviewing the I.J.'

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
's decision.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
This court is reviewing the board's decision.

[00:04:36] Speaker 00:
In assessing the board's decision, this court has held that where the board has failed to make a decision on a critical issue, what is required is for this court to remand the case back to the board.

[00:04:46] Speaker 00:
And I'll quote, where the board fails to mention highly provative or potentially dispositive evidence, the decision cannot stand.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
This is a kid.

[00:04:56] Speaker 01:
from a BIA decision that adopted and affirmed the IJ decision, citing Bourbono.

[00:05:03] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
So that- What case did you just read from?

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
The Pereira-Bock decision, Your Honor, involving political asylum, relates to the way in which the court has to address the evidence.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
In that particular case, the court did not consider country conditions regarding persecution.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
Which court?

[00:05:21] Speaker 01:
the BIA court because because if the BIA adopts an affirm citing to Bergvano, it can just point to what the IJ did.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
And so telling me the BIA doesn't discuss cannot be right.

[00:05:33] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, not just that it didn't discuss, it didn't rely on past persecution or on a finding of past persecution or a finding of a particular... It didn't find past persecution based on a protected ground.

[00:05:44] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
Why do they have to decide anything else if they decided that?

[00:05:48] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, because in order to make that decision, the court has to decide what was the motive, what was the nexus to decide... They did.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
They did.

[00:05:54] Speaker 01:
They said it was because of financial gain.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
It was a criminal act.

[00:05:58] Speaker 00:
And that reason is incorrect based on the evidence in his record.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
Okay, but you said you had two arguments.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
And I'm focusing on the one.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
The second I understand is the argument the evidence is incorrect.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
I do not understand your first argument.

[00:06:10] Speaker 01:
If it's anything other than we just discussed, please clarify it to me.

[00:06:13] Speaker 01:
If it's simply saying that the evidence wasn't there, that's your second argument.

[00:06:17] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, I understand that.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
The evidence wasn't there, and certainly that is my second argument.

[00:06:21] Speaker 00:
With regards to the first argument, this court has been very clear that the BIA has to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision in order for this court to then decide.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
But it did.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
It adopted the IJ's decision.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
I think that the problem here is that when it adopted the IJ's decision, it adopted it with respect to the family PSG and the motive for the first encounter, which is the financial gain,

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
But it also then went ahead and swept in all of the other PSGs that the IJA didn't do an analysis on the nexus.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
So I know you keep saying that the BIA has to do this reasoned analysis, but the BIA, as Judge Clifton has indicated, can simply point to the IJA decision

[00:07:00] Speaker 03:
and affirm when the IJ has in fact gone through the analysis.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
So that's why I'm looking at the IJ analysis, because that is the relevant analysis that we have to look to if the BIA is simply affirming the IJA's nexus analysis, which is what it did.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
And the BIA could have affirmed on

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
The fact that the PSGs were not cognizable, that would have been fine because the IJ did that analysis.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
It could have affirmed on the ground that your client did not in fact suffer past persecution.

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
But it didn't do that.

[00:07:36] Speaker 03:
The BIA affirmed on nexus grounds.

[00:07:39] Speaker 03:
And then when you look at the IJ decision, there was no analysis done by the IJ with respect to the PSG relating to crime victims and crime victims who cooperate with the police.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
So I think.

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
You know, that is the question that I am trying to get you to focus on, which is, what is the error with respect to the IJ analysis on Nexus?

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
With regards to the IJ's reasoning, and there are reasons provided by the IJ in this decision, the IJ goes on to provide reasons for why the evidence doesn't show a particular social group, it does go into past persecution, and it is incomplete, as the court notes, regarding some of the arguments that were raised by the petitioner.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
Why can't the motive that the IJ cites

[00:08:22] Speaker 03:
relating to financial gain not apply to the PSG relating to crime victims.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, there may be a dual motive case here, where there was a reason to pursue or to persecute this particular petition based on the quest for financial gain, but the issue for the IJ, as well as to the BIA, was whether or not there were other reasons, and for this Court, that compel a different conclusion, and that takes me to Judge Clifton's point regarding the second argument, which is the evidence here is not addressed

[00:08:52] Speaker 00:
entirely by either the IJ or by the BIA.

[00:08:56] Speaker 00:
For example, some of the evidence doesn't address the severity of the harm inflicted in this case to justify why the only reason was a quest for financial gain.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
If the only reason for financial gain was—if the only motive was financial gain, he wouldn't have been severely beaten.

[00:09:12] Speaker 03:
He wouldn't have been— I think that it's completely reasonable to say that the facts in this case

[00:09:18] Speaker 03:
suggest that the first encounter, which was a robbery of his home and a beating, that the reason for that was, the motive behind that was financial gain.

[00:09:28] Speaker 03:
I disagree with what you're arguing here, is that simply because he was beat that the motive couldn't be financial gain.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
But there's a second encounter in which they came back, there was no robbery, so there's no financial gain motive there.

[00:09:43] Speaker 03:
In that second encounter,

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
He had gone to the police, and the people who came to his home said, why did you go to the police?

[00:09:53] Speaker 03:
We're going to kill you.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
They make threats to him.

[00:09:55] Speaker 03:
And that is the basis of his PSG relating to crime victims and crime victims who cooperate with police.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
Were that in the fact that he went to a police station to report the incident initially while still being tied?

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
Well, my question is, why can't the IJ's determination that the motive relating to financial gain can't also attach to that second encounter?

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, and that's quite possible, that you could attach to one of the many reasons in this case, but where the decision is incomplete and doesn't really address the nexus and all of the events presented, which suggests that there were other reasons, that there was in fact persecution on account of a particular social group.

[00:10:29] Speaker 00:
This court should demand at a minimum to be... What social group?

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
You know, the particular social group in here, the primary social group is victims and witnesses of crimes who cooperated with law enforcement.

[00:10:40] Speaker 01:
Now, the reported persecutor wasn't somebody going after a generic crime victim who reported to the police.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
It was going after somebody involved in the very sane episode that the gang member was involved in.

[00:10:53] Speaker 01:
That doesn't really suggest persecution because of a particular social group, because of dislike for people who squeal.

[00:11:02] Speaker 01:
It suggests, I don't like you talking because you're going to get me in trouble.

[00:11:05] Speaker 01:
I'm not going to stand for that.

[00:11:06] Speaker 01:
That's a crime victim.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
That's not a particular social group.

[00:11:09] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, with all due respect, when it relates to gang persecution, even the BIA has found that there's no blanket rejection of PSG based on gang persecution, that there's a possibility in the certain fact scenarios, you may be able to find a particular social group, even where the individual is reporting that.

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
I'm not talking about what could happen.

[00:11:25] Speaker 01:
I'm saying in this particular episode, you're talking about somebody involved in the very same episode.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
How does that become a particular social group?

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
You know, because you look at what the individual did to then promote that persecution on account of that group in the prayer block.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
All the individual did was tell his brother not to join that gang or to leave the gang.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
Does this really matter?

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
Even if what Judge Clifton is arguing is correct or saying is correct, and I think that there's

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
good reason to agree with him on this point that maybe the PSG is not recognizable.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
Does that really matter because the BIA did not affirm on that ground?

[00:12:04] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, the BIA did not affirm on that ground and for that reason and others that I've raised this morning, I would ask this court to remand the case.

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
I do see that amount of time and I would like to reserve at least 30 seconds.

[00:12:13] Speaker 04:
I'll give you two minutes for a bottle.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
You can finish answering Judge Desai's question.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, yes, there was no ruling on that issue.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
The court did make many findings in this case.

[00:12:22] Speaker 00:
But the decision is incomplete, both by the immigration judge and by the BA.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
And if you find that the decision is incomplete to the point where it deprives this court

[00:12:31] Speaker 00:
of meaningful judicial review about exactly what the board believes to be a particular social group.

[00:12:36] Speaker 00:
This course will remind the proceedings back to the board for additional consideration.

[00:12:39] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:12:40] Speaker 04:
For my benefit, Mr. Cruz, when you stand back up, I would love for you to begin by just giving me maybe just in bullet points exactly what you think

[00:12:49] Speaker 04:
was missing from the BIA's decision, because I really do share Judge Clifton's questions about this case.

[00:12:56] Speaker 04:
I don't see why the BIA had to say anything more than it said, given the IJ's finding that, even assuming that your client established his social groups, he failed to show that he was targeted on such grounds.

[00:13:10] Speaker 04:
If you could just give bullet points when you stand back up, that would be helpful.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
I'll give you two minutes.

[00:13:14] Speaker 00:
I would appreciate that.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
Mr. Romanes, you can proceed.

[00:13:24] Speaker 02:
I please the Court, Your Honors.

[00:13:27] Speaker 02:
Tim Remitz on behalf of the United States Attorney General.

[00:13:30] Speaker 02:
This immigration case, the agency properly and reasonably found that petitioners' claims for asylum and holding removal lacked the nexus to a protected ground.

[00:13:39] Speaker 03:
rather the only can you point me to where in the record the ij or bia analyzes the nexus between the victims related psgs so crime victims crime victims who cooperate with police psgs and the harm the petitioner experienced during the second encounter with the gang members i can look through it but i think

[00:14:03] Speaker 02:
What Judge Clifton said is correct, that what they're finding is there's just no motives related to any of the particular social groups, and also there's no ... No, no, no.

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
I would like you to point me to where in the record the IJ or BIA analyzes the nexus.

[00:14:17] Speaker 03:
The reason I'm asking this is because I agree with Judge Clifton, and I think with what you're saying, that the IJ at ER 57 and the BIA at ER 4 talk about the motive

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
with respect to the first encounter, which is that there was financial gain motive to enter the home and rob and beat the petitioner.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
And it cabins that analysis with respect to the PSG for Family Association and the first encounter.

[00:14:48] Speaker 03:
What I'm asking for is where in the record is there a nexus analysis with respect to the second encounter and the PSGs for crime victims?

[00:14:56] Speaker 02:
Well, I think you find that analysis between pages 57 and 58, because when the immigration judge is discussing nexus, it starts out by saying, we don't see any motive here besides criminal motives, and it goes through both incidents.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
It goes through the robbery incident, and page 58, it goes into the second incident where these individuals came back to this home and threatened him.

[00:15:18] Speaker 02:
And he discusses how they mentioned that they weren't unbothered by the fact that he was going to threaten to report them to the police again.

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
But he says that they don't.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
But they don't at 58 when they're talking about the second incident talk about financial gain as the motive anymore.

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
In fact, I think what the IJ does this time is just say that there wasn't sufficient harm.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
And that's sort of what the IJA concludes, which is that there really isn't sufficient harm.

[00:15:46] Speaker 03:
And so let me ask you this question.

[00:15:49] Speaker 03:
Is it your position that the IJA wasn't required to evaluate Nexus as to the second encounter because he wasn't physically harmed?

[00:15:58] Speaker ?:
No.

[00:15:58] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
And I just don't read the idea of his decision that way.

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
He groups us under the nexus subhead.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
This is all about nexus.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
He's analyzing both these instances to see whether or not there's a nexus to protect the ground.

[00:16:10] Speaker 02:
He mentions the petitioner's subjective beliefs about what happened to his mother and grandmother in the same paragraphs.

[00:16:17] Speaker 02:
He mentions the robbery.

[00:16:19] Speaker 02:
And while he parses the first one's criminal financial gain and doesn't mention, for example, personal animus for the second for reporting the crime as he

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
motivation, it's still lumping it all in.

[00:16:31] Speaker 02:
And this idea is just these are all criminal motivations.

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
And they certainly don't have any nexus to- I don't see a reference to the crime victims PSG at all in the nexus heading.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
I mean, I agree with you.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
The heading is nexus.

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
But I don't think we look just to the heading to determine whether or not a nexus analysis was done.

[00:16:49] Speaker 03:
Would you agree with that?

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:16:51] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:16:52] Speaker 03:
So where is there a reference to the crime victims PSGs?

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
in this entire section.

[00:17:00] Speaker 02:
There's no reference, but we're arguing he doesn't need to make a specific reference to that group because he's analyzing what the only motive on the record is.

[00:17:08] Speaker 02:
So he's looking at the facts as petitioner related them, and the only motive he sees on these facts is criminal motivations.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
So your argument is that there doesn't actually have to be any analysis done with respect to these specific

[00:17:21] Speaker 03:
PSG.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
So tell me how you can square that argument with our decision in Rios v. Lynch, which very explicitly says that the IJ or BIA needs to do a nexus analysis with respect to each and every PSGs that are presented by the petitioner.

[00:17:39] Speaker 02:
You square it in the fact that when you're looking at these cases where people allege various PSGs and it's gang violence,

[00:17:46] Speaker 02:
It's quite common for the agency and this court just to look at the only motivation on the record and to set aside all the other allegations of nexus, which here are family and witnesses to crime, and say the only nexus I see here is criminal motivations.

[00:18:00] Speaker 02:
That's what's squaring this, because you're not going through, does it have a nexus to this?

[00:18:04] Speaker 02:
Does it have a nexus to this?

[00:18:06] Speaker 02:
They're saying here is the only nexus we see.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
But the only time that the IJ says that is in this sentence.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
Respondent was harmed by gang members who robbed his home

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
for financial gain.

[00:18:18] Speaker 03:
And that relates to the first encounter.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
So that's the robbing of his home.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
If all of the other PSGs that he's alleging, the other two PSGs, relate to the second encounter, how can you attach that motive to those PSGs, especially when the IJ doesn't talk about them?

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
Let me switch gears here.

[00:18:37] Speaker 01:
Let me ask if the first sentence under nexus may speak to what you're talking about.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
That is, it's under a heading nexus.

[00:18:45] Speaker 01:
And the first sentence says, finally, even assuming arguendo that respondent establishes groups are cognizable or that he expressed a political opinion, he failed to show he was targeted on account of such grounds, which I take to mean whenever he claims he was targeted, it was linked to what goes on to be discussed as financial gain.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
Wouldn't that satisfy the obligation, if any, to specify with regard to each

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
particular social group?

[00:19:17] Speaker 02:
That was what I was attempting to argue, is that they're just, whatever they're alleging is these various groups are motivations.

[00:19:24] Speaker 02:
The immigration judge is really looking at what he sees as the only motivation.

[00:19:29] Speaker 02:
And when in here, it's just clearly criminal motivation.

[00:19:31] Speaker 02:
He's going to look at these groups, and here's your groups that you said, but the only motive I see is criminal.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
And that's what he's talking about under Nexus.

[00:19:40] Speaker 02:
And you see the board say the same thing.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you a question that I asked your friend on the other side, which is, even if we find that the IJ's nexus determination was problematic or erroneous, can we deny the petition on the grounds that the petitioner's fear of future harm is not objectively reasonable?

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
Yes, the court can.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
Ever in this case, I would say the board and the immigration judge tied it to nexus.

[00:20:06] Speaker 02:
When he looks at well-founded fear, and you see the immigration judge as well, they say that ultimately we don't find there's a nexus for the well-founded fear either.

[00:20:14] Speaker 02:
And this is based on the objective facts, as he said, for well-founded fear.

[00:20:18] Speaker 02:
So he said that his cousin Carla has continued to live at the store for the last three years and no one's come by to

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
threatened her based on petition or even threatened her at all.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
His daughters lived there, remained in Honduras unharmed.

[00:20:31] Speaker 02:
He's never experienced further threats.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
So looking at the objective facts for well-founded fear as they relate to Nexus.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
So I think in this case, you'd have the finding that he also did not present or did not present an alternative claim for a well-founded fear on account of a protected ground.

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
And lastly, there's a cat component to this case as well.

[00:20:55] Speaker 02:
I think the agency reasonably found there was not a clear probability of torture.

[00:21:00] Speaker 02:
Well, mainly for the reason that I've just discussed, the fact that all these, Carla, his cousin lives in the place, store unharmed.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
His daughters remain there unharmed.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
There's no clear probability anyone seeks to target him.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
And moreover, there's no acquiescence in this case.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
help by the police.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
They took his police report.

[00:21:19] Speaker 02:
They referred him to another police department.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
They took his report, interviewed with a district attorney.

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
They took forensic evidence in his case.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
And according to his affidavit, they came back to his house afterwards and investigated and saw there was ransacked.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
So I think there's no component of a cat case or no factors that would lead to a clear probability of persecution or torture in this case either.

[00:21:40] Speaker 02:
Unless the panel has any other questions, I will see the rest of my time.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much.

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:21:54] Speaker 04:
You have two minutes.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, with regards to your bullet points, I'd like to first begin with another matter that the board did not address in this decision to follow on Judge Desai's comments.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
Yes, the board does not, the board nor the IGI addressed the second encounter for why the second encounter took place.

[00:22:10] Speaker 00:
Clearly, there were other reasons other than a quest for financial gain.

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
There was also an incident preceding that July 22nd attack where he was approached by two police officers who demanded money.

[00:22:20] Speaker 00:
He was the victim of a shakedown.

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
And there he went to the police and reported to police.

[00:22:25] Speaker 00:
When he arrived there, he was told at the officers that their names did not appear on the list of officers for that police department.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
And yet, nevertheless, father report and before leaving was told to be careful.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
A month later, of course, he is attacked and severely beaten.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
Four days later, one of the individuals returns again.

[00:22:40] Speaker 00:
And so there is a pattern here of cooperation, not just following the initial attack, not just following the second incident where he threatens the gang member while a gun is pointed to him and says, I will go to the police.

[00:22:53] Speaker 00:
His fear was so great that he decided to leave Honduras the very next day after he'd made that threat to that particular gang member.

[00:22:59] Speaker 00:
And so that reference to that incident involving these two officers, Your Honor, can be found at page 341 of the record, item number 10.

[00:23:08] Speaker 00:
With regards to the issue of acquiescence and the issue of whether or not the fear is objectively reasonable.

[00:23:15] Speaker 00:
Yes, there was a quest for financial gain, but there were other matters here that the court ignored.

[00:23:21] Speaker 00:
Yes, the distant cousin lives there.

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
Mother and grandmother are now deceased.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
In this case, the daughters have been hiding, have been moved to three different cities within the last few years since he left.

[00:23:31] Speaker 00:
And with regards to acquiescence, there is widespread corruption and willful blindness noted in the country report for Honduras.

[00:23:39] Speaker 00:
And for these reasons, Your Honor, I ask the court to remand the case to the BIA.

[00:23:43] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:23:44] Speaker 04:
We thank both counsel for their arguments this morning and this case is submitted.