[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
First is Caceres-Marquez versus Bondy.

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
Hawkins.

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:00:05] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, Mary Elizabeth Hawkins, on behalf of Petitioners Haiti, Caceres-Marquez, and her eight-year-old son.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
You'll have to speak up a little louder.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
Mary Elizabeth Hawkins on behalf of the petitioners and I'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:24] Speaker 01:
I'll watch my time.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
This case is primarily about internal relocation so I'll focus on that and if there's time I'll touch on some other issues.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Here the Department of Homeland Security had the burden of showing that internal relocation within Honduras, excuse me, was both safe and reasonable.

[00:00:43] Speaker 01:
It was also their burden to propose an area of

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
relocation.

[00:00:48] Speaker 01:
In this case, that area seems to be Guarajao Viejo, the small rural village where petitioners were living before coming to the United States.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
The IJ, the immigration judge, engaged in some speculative fact finding, which was pointed out in the BIA's dissent.

[00:01:08] Speaker 01:
And the BIA also misstated some of the facts in the records.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
But notably, the Department of Homeland Security, although it was their burden, did not elicit any testimony or really even articulate why relocation would be reasonable, given the balancing factors set forth in the regulations and in the case law.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
Is it required that the BIA

[00:01:27] Speaker 02:
state the evidence upon which it found that it was reasonable?

[00:01:33] Speaker 01:
The BIA affirmed the immigration judge, but didn't mention the petitioner's arguments related to her health.

[00:01:43] Speaker 02:
That's different from the evidence, isn't it?

[00:01:47] Speaker 02:
What is your position that the BIA is required to mention each of the

[00:01:53] Speaker 02:
arguments of the petitioner in order to assess them and rule on them?

[00:01:59] Speaker 01:
The BIA is required to review whether the immigration judge applied the appropriate balancing test and to consider all of the, in this case, respondents' arguments.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
The BIA did consider the safety of relocation, but did not consider

[00:02:16] Speaker 01:
the reasonableness.

[00:02:18] Speaker 03:
I think we probably know what it would say if it was remanded on that basis, given that there was a dissent.

[00:02:24] Speaker 03:
I mean, they said they adopt, you know, it was reasonable under all the circumstances and cited the IJ.

[00:02:30] Speaker 03:
So they could have said more, but I think

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
If it was sent back for further finding on that, I think it's pretty clear they would disagree with your position.

[00:02:39] Speaker 03:
So why did the IJ err, I think is the more fundamental question.

[00:02:43] Speaker 01:
Well, yes, it is the IJ decision that we should be looking to.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
And as the dissent pointed out, the IJ claimed without record support that petitioners would be able to benefit from family support and family ties in this rural village.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
Now, that family support includes, as stated by the immigration judge, her now three-year-old twin U.S.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
citizen children, her eight-year-old child, the minor respondent, her husband, who's here and undocumented, her widowed mother, and three of her younger siblings.

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
Now, in her credible testimony, she stated that the ages of those siblings were at the time one-year-old, 13, and 19.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
as she also credibly testified, well, there's no evidence in the record that her mother ever provided any kind of material support to her.

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
To me, it's not clear that the answer would be the same if told to answer the right question.

[00:03:39] Speaker 04:
And as I understand your argument, the right question that they need to answer is this reasonableness of internal displacement.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
And my concern is they're talking about the

[00:03:54] Speaker 04:
situation in Honduras a long time ago, and for her things have changed, but we don't know how.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
Isn't that really the fundamental problem is that they've elicited no information about could she work in the field with all these kids, which she didn't have before?

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
Is there a place in the house?

[00:04:14] Speaker 04:
What would, in your view, if there were a remand, what would it say?

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
Well, I think you're right that further fact finding is required as to those things.

[00:04:24] Speaker 01:
The record as it stands now, she repeatedly said that there was nowhere for her to go.

[00:04:30] Speaker 01:
There's a letter from the landlady, her mother's friend who took the family in after her father's murder.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
There's evidence that she was, in fact, supporting her family.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
And the record is just silent as to whether there would be room for her.

[00:04:46] Speaker 01:
And as you said, her circumstances have changed.

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
Even arguing that it was reasonable for her to relocate at the age of 16, that doesn't mean it's reasonable for her to relocate now as the mother of three children.

[00:04:57] Speaker 04:
I also- Who's got the mental health issue?

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
And there's also the mental health issue.

[00:05:02] Speaker 04:
Who addressed where that figure is in?

[00:05:04] Speaker 01:
She testified that she was in a lot of mental anguish during her time in Guadalajara Viejo and there's a psychological evaluation in the record diagnosing her with untreated post-traumatic stress disorder.

[00:05:17] Speaker 01:
The immigration judge found that she has developed sufficient coping skills during her time in the United States, but those coping skills are largely based on her network of support that she has here and presumably based on her ability to work and support her family.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
What does the record specifically say about the mental health issues that she's suffering from?

[00:05:40] Speaker 03:
Can you kind of lay out what we have here on this record?

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
Well, she talks about having nightmares, never feeling safe.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
Is there like a clinical diagnosis?

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
Yes, and there is.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
Let me find the psychological evaluation that was submitted

[00:06:01] Speaker 01:
I'd also, while I'm finding that, like to point out that the lead petitioner was offered for additional cross-examination at her second merits hearing.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
The BIA did remand this one time to the immigration judge, so he now had two chances to get this right.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
Well, it didn't seem to answer the question.

[00:06:20] Speaker 04:
that got remanded, right?

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
It was remanded to look at past persecution.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Right, exactly.

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
But the psychological evaluation starts at page 239 of the administrative record.

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
Was that prepared for purposes of the IJ proceedings?

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
So my understanding was that a fair amount of her stability, if you will, was related to her church and

[00:06:50] Speaker 04:
church related activities in the United States.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
Was there any testimony elicited whether she could replicate that?

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
The record was silent on that issue.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
The only person she testified about having ongoing contact with in Honduras is her mother.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
It's also notable that while she was living in this village, she had to drop out of school.

[00:07:13] Speaker 01:
The record is silent as to whether her children would have access to schooling or what that would look like.

[00:07:19] Speaker 01:
And again, as Your Honor pointed out, the record is silent as to her ability to find employment.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
If the proposed area of relocation is limited to this tiny village at the time she was 23 years old, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a 23-year-old mother to remain only in one village and not be able to seek employment in the city or in any other part of the country.

[00:07:48] Speaker 01:
But there is also extensive country conditions evidence in the record about the visibility of internally displaced Hondurans and why it wouldn't be safe for her to go somewhere where she doesn't have familial ties.

[00:08:00] Speaker 01:
she would likely be trapped in this one small area.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
And again, the record, what it does say about her ability to support herself, talks about her family continuing to eke out survival based on subsistence farming.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
Her mother and other family members have been unable to find their own home.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
There is no evidence that she would be able to establish her own home with her husband and children as an adult now returning to Honduras.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
I see that my time is coming to an end.

[00:08:31] Speaker 01:
I'm happy to answer other questions.

[00:08:32] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, I'll save it for rebuttal.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
Did she live in Guanajuato for a period of time?

[00:08:37] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
For about seven years?

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
For about seven years.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
That's right.

[00:08:40] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:08:41] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
And when she left, she just had the one child who was, at the time, a very small child.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:08:47] Speaker 03:
Let's put three minutes on the clock for rebuttal when you come back.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
Thank you so much.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
Mr. Nelson, good morning.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
Can you hear me?

[00:09:04] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:09:05] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Aaron Nelson, for the attorney general, the respondent.

[00:09:12] Speaker 00:
Your honor, when the agency found that the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear,

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
for petitioner, it had to answer two questions.

[00:09:21] Speaker 00:
One, is there a location in Honduras where she can safely relocate?

[00:09:25] Speaker 00:
And two, is it reasonable under all the circumstances that she relocate there?

[00:09:31] Speaker 00:
And our position is that the record duly supports the answer is yes to both questions.

[00:09:39] Speaker 00:
And Your Honor asked how long, whether she relocated to Guarajal, Viejo for a period of time,

[00:09:47] Speaker 00:
And I think that is the linchpin for why the court should deny the petition for a rebuke.

[00:09:54] Speaker 02:
She relocated... Are the circumstances in Guanajuato Viejo different now than they were when she lived there before?

[00:10:00] Speaker 00:
I see no evidence of a difference.

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
That's the point.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
There was no evidence offered that it was the same.

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
It would be one thing to say, well, it's the same.

[00:10:11] Speaker 04:
We got the same farm.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
She can work on the farm.

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
She can support herself.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
So to me, the difficulty, and I would appreciate your comments, is really the absence of evidence, which it was the government's obligation to produce.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
The government had the burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show that.

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
I think it did show that and I would submit that testimony is certainly evidence.

[00:10:35] Speaker 00:
Testimony of her own lived experience.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
Point to the testimony as to current conditions in this town that would be parallel to what happened before because that's the evidence that I saw in the testimony.

[00:10:51] Speaker 04:
But I want to go back and review it if you have other testimony where the government is actually

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
eliciting evidence of what the situation is now in the house, the neighbor, the mother, the fields.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure that there is evidence of a change.

[00:11:12] Speaker 00:
I mean, I think that's a slightly different inquiry.

[00:11:15] Speaker 00:
She was asked about her time there.

[00:11:18] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:11:20] Speaker 00:
And our position is that

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
In order for her to prevail, you have to ignore the fact that she lived there for seven years.

[00:11:29] Speaker 04:
But what age was she?

[00:11:31] Speaker 00:
From age 16 to 23.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
And now?

[00:11:34] Speaker 00:
Now she's 26, 27.

[00:11:36] Speaker 04:
And her situation with children has changed, right?

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
It has.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:11:43] Speaker 04:
So how is it, is there any evidence to say, well, in Honduras, the way you work in the field, you put the kid on the back, you go out, you can earn this amount of money and sustain yourself.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
Is there anything about that?

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
Because what I found missing and I appreciate you saying, well, we look at the testimony.

[00:12:00] Speaker 04:
So I, I totally agree with you on that, but I found missing any testimony about how she's going to do this now, not what she did then.

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
So is your honor, are you, are you, are you asking.

[00:12:16] Speaker 00:
Are you asking how she's going to do this now that she has two extra children?

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
Yeah, among other things, because in that case that's cited in the briefing, MZMMZ or MZMR, exactly, they talk about that it's a government's burden and you have to take into account changed circumstances.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
So she's had some changed circumstances, but we don't have testimony about

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
how that would affect her ability to relocate.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
So my understanding is that the change circumstances would more properly redound to the place where she would relocate to.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
If we say that the primary question is change circumstances based on children that she had here, after she came here unlawfully,

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
and her husband came here unlawfully, then effectively we reward her for coming here unlawfully.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
I've heard that argument before.

[00:13:20] Speaker 00:
Well, I didn't make it in the brief, but I'm just on the spot.

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
So she comes, let's say she comes here and she has a total mental breakdown.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
Let's say she comes here and she gets cancer.

[00:13:31] Speaker 04:
Let's say now she has a total mental breakdown.

[00:13:33] Speaker 04:
She has cancer and she has eight children.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
And you're saying, well, that's her fault.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
She went to the United States illegally.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
I mean, that's how I understand it.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
I'm zeroing in on the fact of her having United States citizen children here, not necessarily the health conditions.

[00:13:50] Speaker 04:
To me, the real question is, it would be easy just to remand it and say, they need to either take additional evidence or the BIA needs to take into consideration, as the dissent pointed out,

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
What are the conditions now for her return?

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
It may be they'll be fine.

[00:14:11] Speaker 04:
It may be upon examination.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
It's just that I haven't heard from you the actual testimony as to what the circumstance would be now, other than your argument, well, it's really her fault she came here and had these kids.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
Well, that is a retort to opposing counsel's claim and an answer to your question that

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
change in her personal circumstances are such that we can't send her back now.

[00:14:39] Speaker 00:
The takeaway would be come here and have children and then the relocation analysis is a nullity.

[00:14:45] Speaker 04:
No, it's not a nullity.

[00:14:46] Speaker 04:
It may well be, depending on the village, it may well be that the mother would be willing to take care of the kids.

[00:14:53] Speaker 04:
It may well be that there's child care facilities in the fields.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
I don't know.

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
I'm not sure how that examination or how that evidentiary proffer works.

[00:15:03] Speaker 04:
Well, it works by simply asking her questions.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
Who will take care of your children?

[00:15:09] Speaker 04:
Well, exactly, exactly.

[00:15:11] Speaker 04:
I mean, we just don't have the evidence is all I'm saying.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
We have we have evidence of country conditions, a social social reflection of familiar relationships in Honduras, wherein the family unit is tight, where it is odd or it is unusual for people to leave their family very far.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
And I would say we could deduce that.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
But we can deduce.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
But is there any do we have any evidence about the farm that she could return to?

[00:15:41] Speaker 04:
Do we have any evidence about

[00:15:43] Speaker 04:
farming situation there now.

[00:15:45] Speaker 04:
It's just that there's an absence of evidence is what concerns me.

[00:15:49] Speaker 04:
And it could be the evidence is there.

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
It may well be that the answer would be the same after remand, but it would then be based on a record that took into account.

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
And I think

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
Just to understand your argument, you're suggesting, well, the only circumstances you take into account are the ones in the village, not her circumstances.

[00:16:14] Speaker 00:
No, it's a balancing.

[00:16:15] Speaker 00:
I mean, the factors are, is there civil strife in the place of relocation?

[00:16:19] Speaker 00:
We have no evidence of that.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
Are there geographical limitations?

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
She left Aguascalientes to this remote village, Guarajalviejo, and lived there for seven years.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
There's no evidence that she cannot go back there.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
And then social and cultural factors.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
Her age, she's young.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
She's physically healthy.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
Her gender, she's female.

[00:16:42] Speaker 00:
There is evidence that there's gender-based violence in Honduras.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
But she has never experienced, in her 23 years there, gender-based violence.

[00:16:52] Speaker 00:
She has never experienced physical assaults or threats.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
Her again her health and her familial ties.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
So I would agree that the immigration judge perhaps spoke indelicately and saying that she could be returning with her husband and her twin two year olds.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
could aid her, I think that the immigration judge was taking account of that factor that has to be weighed.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
And it's not just that she has two more children now, so that's her own fault.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
It's a balancing text of all of them.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
They made like the toddlers can assist her.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
I said that's an indelicate... It's just wrong.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
Well, her husband can assist her.

[00:17:38] Speaker 04:
But they didn't say that.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
No, actually, I believe it.

[00:17:41] Speaker 00:
I believe it does that she could be assisted by returning with her children and her husband if he chooses to go.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
Now let's look at the husband.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
She says that, um, she stayed seven years, um, under constant threat.

[00:17:53] Speaker 00:
Although what we have on the constant threat is, is, is an individual named Jose in the previous, uh, town or village who relays, uh, to the mother 10 times round number 10 times.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
that the guys who killed your husband slash father are looking for you.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
And so she says that she was under constant threat of imminent harm.

[00:18:17] Speaker 00:
That's just not what the evidence says.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
And she says that she stayed there for seven years.

[00:18:23] Speaker 04:
They assumed past persecution.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
So we don't need to.

[00:18:27] Speaker 04:
I mean, maybe they would reconsider that.

[00:18:29] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:18:30] Speaker 04:
But they assumed past persecutions.

[00:18:33] Speaker 04:
We don't have to go into all of that.

[00:18:35] Speaker 04:
What we're really focusing on is whether, under the regulations, they've given account as required.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
I was going in a roundabout way just to explain how the husband could help her.

[00:18:51] Speaker 00:
She was in the relocation spot for seven years, unharmed.

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
It was subsistence farming.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
It wasn't great.

[00:18:59] Speaker 00:
That's not necessarily the measures.

[00:19:00] Speaker 04:
The husband could help her how?

[00:19:02] Speaker 04:
What's in the record about that?

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
So here's how the husband could help her.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
There's there's equivocal evidence on why she stayed there seven years.

[00:19:09] Speaker 00:
I was living in hiding.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
I had to help my siblings, et cetera.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
There's also a pretrial brief for the first time around to the immigration judge in which she says, I stayed there while my husband, who came to Washington state illegally, while he gathered enough money to then send for me.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
So the presumption, the husband could help her get here and she was able to cross several.

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
That might be true, but that's not what's in the record.

[00:19:35] Speaker 04:
So I, you know, I think I asked you for the record sites and today sitting here, I haven't heard any, but I appreciate it.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
I think I understand your argument.

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
Any other questions?

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
Otherwise I'll rest.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Mr. Nelson.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:20:02] Speaker 01:
I have just a couple of points I'd quickly like to respond to, and then I'm happy to answer additional questions.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
With respect to the time that petitioners have been here, I think it's important to note that they first arrived in the United States, attempted to come in July of 2021.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
They weren't actually able to enter until September.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
They filed for asylum within a month, and they had their individual hearing the following February.

[00:20:29] Speaker 01:
So all of the delay that has taken place between February 2022 and now has been due to the government's errors in adjudicating this case.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
In terms of updated evidence, most of the evidence does come and with respect to the conditions in Guadalajara Viejo does come from that February 2022 hearing.

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
Again, the government had the opportunity to elicit additional testimony to ask questions or to introduce more evidence in 2024.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
They declined to do so

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
other than the general Department of State human rights reports.

[00:21:03] Speaker 04:
So... Mr. Nelson, though, says, look, she has a husband, she's got the mother, and so she can go back, work in the fields, and the husband can help her.

[00:21:13] Speaker 04:
What's the response to that?

[00:21:15] Speaker 01:
Well, the record is just largely silent on that score.

[00:21:19] Speaker 01:
It is true that when she was living there before, there is some indication that she was, for part of that time,

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
potentially supported by remittances from her husband, but it's just not clear.

[00:21:30] Speaker 01:
And so because the burden of proof is on the government, the immigration judge's findings about how these family members are supposed to be helping her, about the economic opportunities that she would have in this place are just not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

[00:21:49] Speaker 03:
I have two maybe questions or concerns with the position.

[00:21:51] Speaker 03:
I mean, one is sometimes in these relocation findings, we're talking about sending

[00:21:56] Speaker 03:
a person to a different part of the country that's safer, but where they have no connection whatsoever.

[00:22:01] Speaker 03:
But he or she did live there for seven years, seemingly unharmed with other family members.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
And so is it not a reasonable inference from the record that she would, that it'd be reasonable to go back to a place that she had at least some degree of support in and lived safely in before?

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
Well, familial ties are one of the factors that should be considered.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
And so to the extent that this isn't a place where she would be totally alone,

[00:22:26] Speaker 01:
that would be appropriate for the agency to consider.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
But again, what the record says is that she was the one supporting her mother, that her remaining siblings are much younger.

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
And really, the record is silent as to what her husband does, could do, what resources he has.

[00:22:48] Speaker 01:
There's just no evidence there.

[00:22:53] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you, just kind of getting to the second question or concern I would have.

[00:22:57] Speaker 03:
If you fast forward in the case and there are further proceedings on it, what would be the protected ground of persecution and the nexus to that ground that would end up being the basis for asylum or withholding of removal?

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
Well, we argued we proposed several particular social groups below based on her family membership, based on being a witness to a crime.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
All of those things, I think, would likely have to be updated below.

[00:23:26] Speaker 01:
But I understand the concern about not wanting this case to keep going back and forth.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
But really, this court can only uphold the agency based on their own reasoning.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
And unfortunately, despite two opportunities, the immigration judge declined to analyze her case.

[00:23:47] Speaker 01:
We hope that the third time would be the charm, but regardless she's entitled to a full and fair hearing of her claims and a consideration.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
She came to this country and diligently applied for asylum and trusted that she would be afforded the opportunity to have her protection claims heard.

[00:24:05] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:24:08] Speaker 03:
We thank both counsel for the briefing and argument.

[00:24:10] Speaker 03:
This matter is submitted.