[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Good morning, everyone.

[00:00:01] Speaker 04:
We have one case to be argued today, and that's Rosas versus Garland.

[00:00:10] Speaker 04:
And Ms.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
Bult, you may proceed.

[00:00:14] Speaker 04:
First, thank you for appearing pro bono.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Brenna Bult, pro bono counsel for Petitioner Oliver Rosas Rosas.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
I'd like to reserve four minutes of my time for rebuttal.

[00:00:29] Speaker 00:
At just 24 years old, Oliver is facing removal to a country that he left when he was only three and where he fears torture by Mexican cartels and law enforcement.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
The agency rejected Oliver's cat claim based only on likelihood, finding that he had failed to establish a particularized risk and that he would more likely than not be tortured.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
But in doing so, the agency failed to grapple with all aspects of Oliver's claim and the evidentiary record before it.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
As an example of this, I'd like to first turn to the relocation finding that Oliver could safely relocate within Mexico based on the rationale that his grandmother, aunt, and uncle had safely relocated from Guerrero after his grandfather's disappearance.

[00:01:13] Speaker 00:
This analysis narrowly focused on one aspect of Oliver's claim, namely his fear of torture by cartels because of his family membership and did not grapple with his risk of torture by cartels because of his tattoos or former gang membership or his risk of torture by police at all.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
The agency therefore failed in its obligation to consider Oliver's cat claim as a whole and on remand should determine whether Oliver can safely relocate considering all aspects of his claim.

[00:01:42] Speaker 02:
Miss Bolt, the claim about being targeted by the cartels for his tattoos, I take it there isn't anything in the record that suggests a particularized risk that the cartels might target him for some other reason?

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
For some other reason other than his?

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
Other than just a person that has tattoos or gang-related tattoos on his body.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
The agency found that there was no particularized risk because the country could evidence evidence was general.

[00:02:11] Speaker 00:
But in Gary V bar this court found that where evidence about the vulnerability or evidence about the vulnerability of certain populations to which the applicant belongs is relevant to the particularized risk and likelihood analysis.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
Here, the agency gave no explanation for why the country conditions evidence about deportees was not specific to Oliver.

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
And this only reason for finding that the evidence about gang members or cartels recruiting gang members wasn't relevant to him was because Oliver testified that he was a former and not a current gang member.

[00:02:44] Speaker 00:
But the agency contradicts that rationale three sentences later, where it finds that if identified for recruitment, he would not be targeted for torture because cartels prize gang members and gang members often work for cartels.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
So, you know, we're reviewing this under substantial evidence and the agency has put forward this notion that recruited gang members would not be tortured.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
What's the evidence in the record that would compel the conclusion that if he were recruited and did not want to participate, that he would be tortured by a cartel member?

[00:03:16] Speaker 00:
Sure, Oliver presented within the country conditions evidence at AR, I believe, 352.

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
Professor Jeremy Slack mentions in an article that those who refuse to work for cartels are killed.

[00:03:30] Speaker 00:
And Oliver also presented the testimony of his expert witness, Ms.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
Laura Castellano, who testified at 724 that those who refuse to cooperate with cartels are killed.

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
And while the briefing, I know, argues substantial evidence, this court does not overlook the legal errors in the agency's analysis before reviewing or to just get to substantial evidence.

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
It also needs to look at the legal errors in that analysis.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
Tell me what you think are the most serious legal errors.

[00:04:04] Speaker 00:
Finding this evidence that ignoring the evidence that Oliver presented because the agency concluded that it was general and that evidence provides important context to his claim.

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
Are you specifically referring to the expert report?

[00:04:16] Speaker 00:
That was an error as well, Your Honor, yes.

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
I'm describing it as a separate error.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
Okay, finish your first error.

[00:04:25] Speaker 00:
So this court has consistently, since Colby Holder and all of its progeny, found that failing to grapple with material record evidence is a legal error.

[00:04:33] Speaker 00:
And here the agency dismissed Oliver's country conditions evidence because it was general, but without providing any dispositive reasoning as to why.

[00:04:40] Speaker 00:
I mentioned earlier it didn't describe why the country conditions evidence about deportees wasn't specific and its rationale that the evidence about

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
cartels wasn't specific is contradicted by a later finding.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
Well, for better or worse, we have many cases saying that generalized country conditions reports aren't sufficient to sustain a cat claim.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
So why is it error for the agency to rely on that reasoning that have been in our prior cases?

[00:05:09] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor, but the agency can't then also fail to grapple with testimonial evidence that the applicant provides to push himself over that 50% threshold.

[00:05:18] Speaker 00:
So here, Oliver had his aunt testify, he had Ms.

[00:05:21] Speaker 00:
Angelina Contreras testify, and he had his expert witness, as Honor Wardlaw mentioned, testify.

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
Sorry.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
No, go ahead.

[00:05:32] Speaker 02:
Go ahead.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
The way I look at it is you have generalized evidence and that may not be sufficient and what can put you over the line is when it starts to be a little more particularized, that risk.

[00:05:43] Speaker 02:
Did any of his family members' testimony suggest a particularized risk of harm from the cartel that they had an interest in him or from the police or somewhere else?

[00:05:54] Speaker 00:
His aunt testified that tattoos are uncommon in the Zara Cardenas where Oliver would live, and that people with tattoos are discriminated against.

[00:06:02] Speaker 00:
Miss Evangelia Contreras testified that her son, who returned to Michoacan from the US, who had a large tattoo on his chest, was detained by police and handed over to the cartels.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
And the expert specifically opined as to Oliver's risk of torture, describing that he fits the profile of youth

[00:06:23] Speaker 00:
kidnapped and targeted by cartels to work for them, who can be tortured, murdered, or disappeared.

[00:06:27] Speaker 00:
That's at AR 721.

[00:06:29] Speaker 00:
And the agency gave no explanation for why this evidence wasn't sufficient to meet Oliver's burden.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
She also testified that the only reason that the agency gave for rejecting her testimony as to police was that it failed to show all government officials are corrupt and police are more likely than not to target all deportees.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
but this wasn't the burden that Oliver was being held to.

[00:06:56] Speaker 00:
Oliver was only required to show a 50% likelihood of torture, and by requiring Ms.

[00:07:03] Speaker 00:
Castellanos testimony to show that he would be tortured to a near certainty, the immigration judge erred by rejecting that testimony.

[00:07:13] Speaker 04:
Do we know why his

[00:07:16] Speaker 04:
uncle and his grandfather were targeted by the cartel?

[00:07:23] Speaker 00:
I believe the record does describe that they were targeted because his grandfather had refused to cooperate with cartels who wanted trucks that had been seized by the town to be given back, and his grandfather was a political figure.

[00:07:38] Speaker 00:
But again, that's only one aspect of Oliver's claim.

[00:07:41] Speaker 00:
And the country's evidence and testimony that the agency doesn't grapple with really deals with his tattoos and former gang membership, those aspects of his claim.

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
I think at the hearing, or maybe it was in the IJ's decision.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
I can't remember now.

[00:07:58] Speaker 03:
I think the IJ said something about, well, he can cover up his tattoos, or he testified that he could possibly get them removed, or that he could possibly have them re-stylized, I think.

[00:08:13] Speaker 03:
And, you know, if you look, what was, you know, what's, the tattoos really,

[00:08:21] Speaker 03:
In comparison to what we sometimes see, they weren't on his neck, they weren't on his face.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
What's wrong with that?

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
What was wrong with the IJ's reasoning there?

[00:08:38] Speaker 00:
So the immigration judge did find that Oliver could remove his tattoos or wear long sleeves for the rest of his life to cover them because his tattoos are mostly on his arms as well as one on his hand.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
But Oliver testified that removal isn't a good option for him because it takes multiple sessions in which he would still be at risk.

[00:08:57] Speaker 00:
It costs money that him and his family don't have, and it would leave scars behind that would still be identifiable.

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge also failed to grapple with evidence in the record that cartels, I believe it's at AR 830, cartels will sometimes ask people to remove their shirts to look for tattoos.

[00:09:14] Speaker 00:
So if Oliver were wearing long sleeves, that wouldn't help him.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
And another indication that the agency failed to grapple with the country conditions evidence here is that Oliver, one of the agency's rationales for rejecting his claim was that Oliver hadn't identified any similarly situated gang members tortured upon removal to Mexico.

[00:09:34] Speaker 00:
But Oliver presented a country conditions article at AR 819 that specifically describes a gang member, a former gang member with the same three dot hand tattoo who after being removed was found with his hands found and shot.

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
So that is an indication that the agency hadn't grappled with that evidence where it's not mentioned.

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
How do we know that the agency didn't grapple with that evidence but just didn't find it compelling enough to?

[00:09:59] Speaker 02:
go in your favor.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
In other words, when we have cases that talk about the agency's failure to grapple with material evidence, it's oftentimes documentary evidence or something more specific to a particular case.

[00:10:17] Speaker 02:
But here we're dealing with something a little more generalized with the different country conditions evidence.

[00:10:22] Speaker 02:
And I guess the government might say you're just trying to reweigh the evidence.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
So how do we address whether you're trying to reweigh it or whether they materially aired in some way?

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
This court in cases such as Parada v. Sessions has found that where the rationale provided by the agency for why the country conditions evidence wasn't sufficient is directly contradicted by something in the record.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
That is an indication the agency didn't grapple with that evidence.

[00:10:50] Speaker 00:
The country conditions article I just gave is an example of that.

[00:10:55] Speaker 00:
And this court has also found that country conditions evidence, especially in a case like this where Oliver has not been in Mexico since he was three,

[00:11:03] Speaker 00:
can is very important in a cat application and can be sufficient to meet that burden.

[00:11:08] Speaker 00:
Here, Oliver didn't just rely on the evidence.

[00:11:10] Speaker 00:
He also presented the testimonial evidence and the expert witness testimony that the agency didn't grapple with.

[00:11:17] Speaker 00:
And I see I'm running out of time, but I'd like to quickly mention a last finding by the agency that the harm that Oliver feared from police wouldn't rise to the level of torture.

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
And the agency described that harm as being pulled over, detained, and severely discriminated against.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
But Oliver repeatedly asserted a fear of torture and being killed by police and even testified specifically that he feared being harmed in interrogations.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
And because of the agency's misunderstanding about his claim, it again failed to grapple with the evidence about his risk of torture by police.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
For example, a State Department report corroborates his fear of being tortured by police to obtain confessions and states that police use torture such as sexual abuse and there have been instances of arbitrary killings.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
A Human Rights Watch report also highlights one survey that said 64% of people incarcerated in 2016 had experienced violence at the time of arrest, such as electric shocks, choking, and smothering.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
And again, Ms.

[00:12:19] Speaker 00:
Castellano testified that it is common for youth with tattoos to be stopped by police, arrested, threatened, and extorted, or even beaten, murdered, and disappeared.

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for a bottle.

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
All right, thank you very much.

[00:12:48] Speaker 01:
May it please the court Nancy Fam for the Attorney General.

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
Your honors, this court should deny the petition for review because substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner failed to establish his eligibility for the deferral removal under CAT.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
The record evidence does not compel the conclusion that petitioner established the clear probability of torture, as we've been discussing this morning.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Specifically, that he failed to demonstrate that particularized risk of torture by either the Jalisco Cartel or law enforcement in Mexico.

[00:13:24] Speaker 01:
Framing this entire case in this record is the standard of review here.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
As Judge Santos mentioned, substantial evidence.

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
That's a highly deferential standard, and the question for judges reviewing the agency's decision is whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found as the agency did.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
Put another way in order to reverse the decision of the agency Every reasonable fact-finder had to decide the opposite.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
What if there's legal error?

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
If there's a legal error, then that is a different standard you're correct.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
Your honor Council is basically arguing that there was legal error

[00:14:06] Speaker 01:
It cancels arguing that there's legal error in that I believe she phrased it that the agency didn't grapple with the evidence, but when you look at the agency decisions they Mentioned specifically all the pieces of evidence the testimony of petitioner the testimony of his aunt the specific expert reports So they certainly the agency and the record is clear that the agency considered the entire record there.

[00:14:33] Speaker 03:
There's one

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
Little, not little, but there's one piece in the BIA's decision that sort of...

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
stuck out with me.

[00:14:44] Speaker 03:
In the decision that the BIA wrote, large numbers of gang members are deported to Mexico from the United States yearly, and Rosa Rosa has not specifically identified any similarly situated gang members who have been tortured upon removal to Mexico.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
That's the BIA.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
But if you look at all that country conditions evidence, and as counsel just pointed out, there were specific references to gang members who had similar tattoos and whatnot, who had suffered torture, and there are articles to that effect.

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
But the BIA just seems to ignore them.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
The agency did not ignore that evidence, Your Honor.

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
They did consider it in the areas that you mentioned.

[00:15:32] Speaker 01:
But specifically, when we talk about the particularized risk, that evidence would look more along the lines of, you know, is there any evidence of, you know, pardon me,

[00:15:47] Speaker 01:
members of the same gang, or is there in case law, in many of the cases that the petitioner mentions in their brief, it's things where the member is specifically targeted, whether there's a threat in the past, there's already actually some action, like a beating, something to tie that member to the risk of torture.

[00:16:12] Speaker 04:
What about the expert report?

[00:16:14] Speaker 04:
The expert report is evidence that

[00:16:17] Speaker 04:
he would be targeted.

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
Yes, or generally, though, gang members generally.

[00:16:23] Speaker 01:
There's nothing in the expert report that covers someone from his gang or someone with his specific tattoos.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
And the government is not saying that that evidence should be discounted.

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
Certainly, it should not.

[00:16:37] Speaker 01:
It is evidence that's in the record that the agency probably considered.

[00:16:41] Speaker 01:
But there's not the evidence that rises to show that this member, that this petitioner, is at a particular risk of torture.

[00:16:52] Speaker 04:
What, to you, would rise to that level?

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
Because what bothers me about this BIA decision is it doesn't even mention the expert report.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
And the expert opines that his fear is reasonable, which means objectively reasonable.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
I mean, it's clear he has a subjective fear.

[00:17:13] Speaker 04:
And this is odd.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
I don't know if it's odd or unusual.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
He can't show past persecution because he left the country when he was three.

[00:17:22] Speaker 04:
So requiring him to show past persecution kind of seems unfair.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
So we have to look at, and we have evidence of subjective fear.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
And then we have the expert report that's objective, is evidence that his subjective fear is objectively reasonable.

[00:17:44] Speaker 04:
And the BIA doesn't mention the expert report.

[00:17:48] Speaker 01:
Right, the BIA in affirming the immigration judge's decision doesn't spend a lot of time mentioning the expert report, but

[00:17:58] Speaker 01:
in reviewing the immigration judge's decision, the immigration judge does review and consider that report and mention Ms.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
Castellano.

[00:18:10] Speaker 01:
And understand the court's concern.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
The government is not trying to argue that there's no risk here.

[00:18:16] Speaker 01:
There's certainly evidence of that.

[00:18:18] Speaker 01:
But when we look at case law,

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
You know, in one of the cases that I think petitioner mentions their brief, it's Barajas Romero.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
In that case, the petition was targeted by police but had been specifically marked on the forehead and threatened that.

[00:18:36] Speaker 01:
that mark will be where the bullet hits anywhere in the country.

[00:18:40] Speaker 01:
You know, it's things like that that we have actual evidence in the record that shows that this petitioner, that this member was targeted and has that threat of future torture in the home country.

[00:18:52] Speaker 01:
And in this case, there is, you know, evidence of these generalized conditions, but there's nothing about

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
even, you know, petitioners specific age or coming.

[00:19:04] Speaker 04:
So are you saying there should be evidence, they need to come forth with evidence that the particular tattoos that he has are linked with gangs that are persecuted in Mexico?

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
The government's not saying that that's absolutely required, but that would be a factor that would be considered, and that would, in the totality of the circumstances, looking at all the relevant conditions potentially, you know, bring that petitioner, that member, above that more likely-than-not standard.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
In this case, though, the petitioner has failed to establish that particular risk of torture by the Holisco Cartel.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
and we rely on matter of JFF.

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
In this case, it's not just about the tattoos, it's that whole chain of hypothetical events that must happen for petitioner to prove that or establish that his risk of torture rises to that more likely than not standard.

[00:20:00] Speaker 01:
So each link of that chain has to be proven by more likely than not.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
So if you go through the chain as I understand it,

[00:20:07] Speaker 03:
He's deported.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
He gets deported.

[00:20:10] Speaker 03:
And the evidence would have to show that as a recent deportee with tattoos, he would be identified as a gang member.

[00:20:22] Speaker 03:
Correct?

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:20:24] Speaker 03:
And now isn't there, there's pretty strong evidence that that would happen.

[00:20:28] Speaker 03:
Isn't there?

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
The government's position that there's not.

[00:20:33] Speaker 01:
Well, there's some evidence in case law of,

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
you know, members that, petitioners that have tattoos and were targeted, there's not.

[00:20:45] Speaker 01:
In this case, as you pointed out, Your Honor, you know, where typically tattoos are, you know, on the face and the neck, I would really encourage Your Honors to look at the record.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
I believe it is AR 540 to 543.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
There's actually pictures of the tattoo.

[00:21:02] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:21:02] Speaker 03:
I've looked at them carefully.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:21:04] Speaker 01:
So I mean, they're on his left arm basically from his elbow to his wrist.

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
And the main tattoo is like a P in a sort of Roman font.

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
So that's just one link in the chain that, one, he's deported, two, that gang members notice him, that they notice that his tattoo, they notice that that tattoo is connected to gangs, and that from there they would recruit him, and that he would refuse the recruitment.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
And then that would lead to torture.

[00:21:34] Speaker 03:
So if you look at the evidence with respect to recruitment, the expert reports and the other evidence is country conditions evidence all seems to suggest that having been, if you identify with those tattoos, he would be a likely candidate for recruitment by the cartels.

[00:21:55] Speaker 01:
The evidence suggests that he could be a candidate, but does in the totality does that get us to more likely than not and then framing that is that under the substantial evidence standard.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
Essentially to reverse or to grant this petition for review every single reasonable fact-finder would have had to disagree with the agency in this case so we have sort of two steps there the actual more likely than not standard and then the Excuse me the substantial evidence standard here before this court If you finish that that hypothetical chain, I mean we did take a look at this chain

[00:22:33] Speaker 03:
Likely, he says he was no longer a gang member and he wouldn't join, he would not voluntarily go with a cartel if they tried to recruit him.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
And then there's evidence that says in the record that shows that if people don't go along with the cartels, you know, they're not treated very nicely.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
Right, Your Honor.

[00:22:55] Speaker 01:
There is evidence in the record that this petitioner would

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
would basically refuse recruitment and that there is some evidence that you know once recruited if they basically like refuse that there's a possibility of torture but again the standard is every single link more likely than not you know deported noticed by the cartel

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
tattoos noticed, tattoos connected with gang affiliation, and then the recruitment and the steps we just mentioned.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
And the government's position is that reviewing this record, the evidence just doesn't support that standard.

[00:23:43] Speaker 01:
And specifically, as to the point of recruitment, there is evidence in some of the country conditions reports that gang members in prison

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
who are active and who are known to have a high likelihood of deported actually do start getting recruited in prison.

[00:24:00] Speaker 01:
But here, Petitioner, based on his testimony in the record, was not recruited, even though that he was known to be a likelihood candidate for deportation.

[00:24:10] Speaker 02:
That evidence seems to cut against the agency to some extent because it just confirms or shows more that the cartels are interested in recruiting gang members.

[00:24:22] Speaker 01:
And the government's not denying that point, Your Honor, but the evidence demonstrates that that interest extends to prisons in the United States.

[00:24:31] Speaker 01:
Petitioner was in prison for a period, I believe, about four years and experienced no recruitment, no interest by gangs, no threats.

[00:24:39] Speaker 01:
He testified to none of that.

[00:24:41] Speaker 01:
We have no evidence of that in the record.

[00:24:43] Speaker 01:
And again, in caseload, we have examples where there's some step that actually connects this person, this petitioner member, to the threat of torture to make the rise to that standard of more likely than not.

[00:24:57] Speaker 02:
Can I ask you to address counsel's argument about the agency's internal relocation finding and whether that was error or not?

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
The government's position is that that is not error.

[00:25:09] Speaker 01:
There's no legal error there.

[00:25:12] Speaker 01:
The immigration judge spends time discussing and analyzing the relocation point.

[00:25:20] Speaker 01:
And again, just taking a step back, relocation is just one of those factors in evaluating the cat claim rates.

[00:25:28] Speaker 01:
The agency must consider all relevant evidence, no one factors determinative.

[00:25:32] Speaker 01:
So relocation is an example in Maldonado of one of those factors.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
So the immigration judge spends time discussing that the mother and I believe the uncle that was, you know, related to them and help them relocate, that they were able to successfully relocate, that

[00:25:51] Speaker 01:
more than 15 years has passed since the grandfather and the uncle had been targeted and that they've lived safely.

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
And so there's no error where the agency has discussed and analyzed it.

[00:26:04] Speaker 02:
I mean, I suppose that would be true if the basis for targeting were the prior family members.

[00:26:11] Speaker 02:
But if it's more driven by gang identification and tattoos, does relocation, I mean, the cartels do seem to have a national reach.

[00:26:21] Speaker 02:
Does internal relocation require a different analysis at that point?

[00:26:28] Speaker 01:
potentially it would if that is triggered by the evidence.

[00:26:31] Speaker 01:
And here we didn't have anything specific in the record to show that these tattoos would be any different than any person essentially relocating to this town.

[00:26:42] Speaker 01:
What we do know is that family members, you know, directly connected to him and to his grandfather and uncle obviously were able to successfully relocate and have lived there, you know, peacefully for over 15 years.

[00:26:55] Speaker 01:
And the agency did

[00:26:58] Speaker 01:
address that and analyze it properly.

[00:27:00] Speaker 01:
And so the government would just like to end with just stressing that in this case we have a chain of many hypothetical events.

[00:27:13] Speaker 01:
Every single one of those links has to be proven by more likely than not standard

[00:27:17] Speaker 01:
Any failure in one of the links, you know, makes the claim fail, but the government's position is that the entire chain fails.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
Again, substantial evidence that highly deferential standard means that the question is whether any reasonable adjudicator could have found as the agency did.

[00:27:35] Speaker 01:
And under that standard, the government is respectfully requesting this court to deny the petition for review.

[00:27:41] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:27:44] Speaker 04:
This vote.

[00:27:53] Speaker 00:
Your honor mentioned the expert testimony, and I'd like to point to AR 721 through AR 724, which in that section of the expert declaration, she does opine specifically as to Oliver's risk.

[00:28:07] Speaker 00:
And AR 722, she says specifically, persons between the ages of 15 and 34 are among the most vulnerable population because they have the highest cases of disappearances in Mexico.

[00:28:19] Speaker 00:
And as to the relocation analysis, the government points to Santos Lemus as analogist, but a better case here to look at would be Vasquez Rodriguez, where this court found that Vasquez Rodriguez's uncle's ability to remain in the country, even though Vasquez Rodriguez had supported his political campaign, was not relevant to the applicant's risk of torture by police for being a suspected gang member.

[00:28:45] Speaker 00:
And again, this court does not need to overlook the legal errors in the agency's analysis to reach substantial evidence.

[00:28:53] Speaker 00:
Another indication that the agency didn't properly consider the evidence is on AR 98, where the agency says that there is no reason anyone in Mexico, no evidence that anyone in Mexico is waiting or is looking for the respondent for any reason.

[00:29:05] Speaker 00:
But the border report article at AR, I apologize I think it's 276 or 376, says cartels literally wait for gang members to enter Mexico to be targeted.

[00:29:20] Speaker 00:
So while the agency is free to deny a cat claim, it's not free to ignore country contingent's evidence that establishes the context to an applicant's claim, and then also fail to grapple with the witness testimony, especially where the applicant has supplied an expert witness's opinion specific to him, and the agency has given no reason why that expert's testimony was rejected and a legally sufficient reason.

[00:29:51] Speaker 00:
to reach that decision.

[00:29:53] Speaker 04:
What's your strongest case that Mr. Roses would be more likely tortured because of his tattoos?

[00:30:05] Speaker 00:
The strongest case would be, as in case law, Your Honor?

[00:30:08] Speaker 00:
Case law.

[00:30:10] Speaker 00:
In the briefing, I believe we point to Maldonado v. Lynch and, of course, Cole v. Holder.

[00:30:16] Speaker 04:
You think Cole is your strongest case?

[00:30:18] Speaker 00:
I think Cole is the strongest case because it points to the legal errors in this case, where the agency, again, took a shortcut in reaching its decision.

[00:30:29] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:30:30] Speaker 04:
Thank you very much, counsel.

[00:30:34] Speaker 04:
Roses v. Garland will be submitted.

[00:30:36] Speaker 04:
Romero v. Garland has previously been submitted.

[00:30:40] Speaker 04:
And the session of the court will adjourn for today.

[00:30:43] Speaker 04:
Thank you both for your arguments.

[00:30:58] Speaker 04:
This court for this session stands adjourned.