[00:00:00] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:00:01] Speaker 01: Good morning and welcome to the Ninth Circuit. [00:00:03] Speaker 01: Thank you for appearing today. [00:00:05] Speaker 01: We just have one case on calendar, which is Ducillus versus Bondi 24-1451. [00:00:10] Speaker 01: Each side will have 10 minutes and we look forward to your arguments. [00:00:17] Speaker 01: Oh, sorry. [00:00:17] Speaker 01: I should also say that Judge Bress and I are pleased to be sitting with Judge Boggs, who's sitting by designation from the Sixth Circuit. [00:00:23] Speaker 01: I apologize for not saying that. [00:00:25] Speaker 01: We are very grateful for his help and welcome him. [00:00:28] Speaker 01: And with that, I think we're ready to begin. [00:00:30] Speaker 01: I apologize. [00:00:35] Speaker 04: Did I go forward, Your Honor? [00:00:37] Speaker 01: Yes, please. [00:00:37] Speaker 01: Sorry for the interruption. [00:00:39] Speaker 04: Okay, good morning. [00:00:40] Speaker 04: In Pula's Court, I'm Murray Hales, the attorney for petitioner. [00:00:47] Speaker 04: Agency basically held that extortion and poor prison conditions do not rise to the level of torture. [00:00:55] Speaker 04: The agency also erred in holding that Haiti government did not intend to cause suffering. [00:01:00] Speaker 04: Now, the BIA were dramatically, substantially led on JE. [00:01:05] Speaker 04: And there's reasons for that, because it's regarding deportees being incarcerated once they came back to Haiti. [00:01:12] Speaker 04: And so it's related to their country. [00:01:16] Speaker 04: However, it's distinguishable 2002 Haiti was just a poor country that. [00:01:23] Speaker 04: didn't have the resources to properly run the prisons. [00:01:28] Speaker 04: At this point, the Haiti government has completely collapsed. [00:01:33] Speaker 04: It also should be noted at one point, the Haitian government suspended the process of detaining deportees once they came into Haiti. [00:01:45] Speaker 04: So at that point, when they started doing that again, that's an intentional act. [00:01:53] Speaker 04: It also should be noted, I did look up that- Intentional act, what do you mean? [00:01:56] Speaker 04: Intent to detain? [00:01:57] Speaker 04: Well, they suspended it one time. [00:02:01] Speaker 04: Yes, it is to detain. [00:02:04] Speaker 04: At one point they suspended it and then they started redoing again. [00:02:07] Speaker 04: So that's an intentional act. [00:02:10] Speaker 01: Go ahead Judge Boggs. [00:02:14] Speaker 03: As I understand it, you sort of began by saying, well, there's extortion and there's poor conditions. [00:02:22] Speaker 03: but don't you need to show more likely than not, not just that some people are detained for extortion purposes, but this gentleman, it's more likely than not 50% plus that he will be detained. [00:02:38] Speaker 03: And then beyond that, it's 50% more likely than not that he will be tortured, that you have to be both of those, not just that it could happen. [00:02:50] Speaker 04: Well, that's fair. [00:02:51] Speaker 04: That's a fair look at it. [00:02:52] Speaker 04: But there was an article that said that of the 27 people that were that were deported, all 27 were detained. [00:03:03] Speaker 04: So that's actually occurring. [00:03:05] Speaker 03: Some of the articles, you know, all of which, to be fair, or at least to me, are not like, [00:03:14] Speaker 03: State Department country conditions we usually see, they're from relatively advocacy organizations or partisan magazines and that sort of thing. [00:03:27] Speaker 03: I did not see the numbers about 27. [00:03:29] Speaker 03: You may be right. [00:03:31] Speaker 03: The ones I saw, the guy says, I'm in here, and there are 20 or 30 other American deportees. [00:03:38] Speaker 03: But it doesn't say how many people total are deported. [00:03:41] Speaker 04: I think it's I think it's October 10th submission. [00:03:45] Speaker 04: And he said there's 27 out of 27. [00:03:47] Speaker 03: I mean, the submission is what another newspaper article. [00:03:51] Speaker 04: I think something out of fact, but it also you got it. [00:03:54] Speaker 04: The government did not object to that. [00:03:56] Speaker 04: So to that, so they could have objected and they did not. [00:03:59] Speaker 03: I mean, I'm not saying that it's objectionable. [00:04:02] Speaker 03: It is some evidence, but whether it would a rise to 50% and B compel that conclusion. [00:04:12] Speaker 03: I mean, isn't that the more difficult part? [00:04:14] Speaker 04: I think, well, it says 27 out of 27. [00:04:16] Speaker 04: That's pretty good. [00:04:18] Speaker 04: It's been the country conditions. [00:04:21] Speaker 04: So, and I think it was. [00:04:22] Speaker 04: On October 10th that we submitted that, but the country can just show they've been doing this for a long time. [00:04:28] Speaker 04: Then they suspended it. [00:04:30] Speaker 04: And then they started doing again. [00:04:31] Speaker 04: So that is an intentional act. [00:04:35] Speaker 04: The question is then when you get actually into the jails, the conditions are clearly, you know, terrible. [00:04:42] Speaker 04: They're deplorable. [00:04:43] Speaker 04: So you're basically in a position, either you have to pay for your to get out or you're in the incredibly difficult conditions. [00:04:53] Speaker 04: And there's also, there was some short showing that in 2002, only 10 [00:05:00] Speaker 04: detained people were killed versus there was like 200 last year. [00:05:03] Speaker 04: So the condition's getting worse. [00:05:05] Speaker 04: And we've just got to, I mean, if we're looking at the country conditions, Haiti is just, the government's collapsed. [00:05:11] Speaker 04: 1.1 million people are under the control of gangs. [00:05:16] Speaker 04: So, I mean, I think you have the act that they're actually redoing this again, and then you have the act, if they can't get out, the conditions are deplorable. [00:05:26] Speaker 03: So, and- Is there a law on the difference [00:05:30] Speaker 03: that if you're simply unable to intervene in things that are not under your control, that that would count as, as acquiescence or knowing acquiescence? [00:05:44] Speaker 04: Well, I think they're given a blind eye to it. [00:05:48] Speaker 04: They basically letting their, none of these people are being held with charges and the basically the, um, [00:05:57] Speaker 04: They're basically in a position where they can't get out. [00:06:00] Speaker 04: And I want to also make another point. [00:06:02] Speaker 01: Can I ask a question? [00:06:04] Speaker 01: You're saying the government has collapsed, but I'm not sure how that helps you for CAT where we need government acquiescence. [00:06:11] Speaker 01: What do we do if you're saying the government has collapsed, but the CAT claim requires essentially there to be a government? [00:06:17] Speaker 04: Well, most, I mean, a collapse completely is not correct. [00:06:20] Speaker 04: They're obviously at a detention facility, which is run by the government, and they're having a blind eye. [00:06:27] Speaker 04: They basically know that they've come in here without, and they came into the prison. [00:06:33] Speaker 04: They have no charges. [00:06:35] Speaker 04: There's no due process. [00:06:37] Speaker 04: Back in 2002, there was due process where they basically said they had some sort of commission that you'd be, [00:06:44] Speaker 04: That they look at case. [00:06:46] Speaker 04: They said it was a little sporadic, but they said it would be a couple of weeks. [00:06:49] Speaker 04: There's no suggestion that exists anymore. [00:06:52] Speaker 04: So, um, I think the fact that they're in the jail. [00:06:57] Speaker 04: And they're under control of the government. [00:07:00] Speaker 04: It that's they have to know. [00:07:02] Speaker 04: I mean, they've given a blind eye for them conditions get that well. [00:07:05] Speaker 01: And I thought part of your argument was that the government was actually using the bad conditions as a way to conduct extortion, getting the families to pay to get them out. [00:07:16] Speaker 01: That seems to imply a level of government involvement. [00:07:19] Speaker 01: Is it your argument that that's still continuing? [00:07:21] Speaker 04: Yes, and I don't think that in the 2002, another decision, I didn't see anything that they were doing that before. [00:07:28] Speaker 04: So definitely extortion is another act of the by the government. [00:07:33] Speaker 04: They're basically looking at these people's as income. [00:07:36] Speaker 04: So, and it's just recently, they started redoing it again. [00:07:40] Speaker 04: So it's definitely, there was an intent to do it because they changed their policy and then they're extorting, which was something new. [00:07:47] Speaker 01: So do we have any information about how common the extortion is? [00:07:52] Speaker 04: Uh, I don't, I just, the article suggests that that's the modus operandi. [00:07:56] Speaker 04: I don't, I don't really have statistics that say one thing versus the other, but it's been pretty consistent in the, um, in the articles. [00:08:06] Speaker 05: So what, what, what articles are you referring to specifically that you would direct us to? [00:08:11] Speaker 04: I had that. [00:08:13] Speaker 04: I apologize. [00:08:14] Speaker 04: Um, I think it's a submission to October 10th. [00:08:18] Speaker 04: Wait a second. [00:08:22] Speaker 03: But October 10th, you're saying it's the date of the submission. [00:08:25] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:08:27] Speaker 03: Not the date of the particular article. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: And as I remember, the mission was quite voluminous. [00:08:33] Speaker 03: Given some of the citations I looked, as I said, I found one in the nation. [00:08:38] Speaker 03: that then is a recap in the North Jersey. [00:08:42] Speaker 03: And then there's the two that come from the health without walls. [00:08:48] Speaker 03: That there are two of them that you cite that take off from each other. [00:08:53] Speaker 03: Are those the ones you're referring to? [00:08:56] Speaker 04: I apologize. [00:08:59] Speaker 04: Um, [00:09:05] Speaker 04: I think it's the submission of October 10th, and it would be under section. [00:09:14] Speaker 01: I'm not sure what you mean by submission of October 10th. [00:09:16] Speaker 01: Do you mean to us? [00:09:18] Speaker 04: No, to the court. [00:09:19] Speaker 04: I apologize. [00:09:19] Speaker 04: October 10th, I apologize. [00:09:22] Speaker 03: And it's administrative record. [00:09:26] Speaker 04: I think it's 14, I believe. [00:09:29] Speaker 04: Exhibit 14. [00:09:30] Speaker 01: Sorry, what are you saying? [00:09:31] Speaker 04: I think it was example 14. [00:09:33] Speaker 04: I could direct that in a brief statement, but it's basically the pipeline funneling US deportees to Asian prison. [00:09:42] Speaker 03: That's the Nation Magazine article starts at page 357 of 594, according to my reading of the top of the docket entry 7.2. [00:09:57] Speaker 03: Because that headline is the Nation Magazine article of 2022, November of 2022. [00:10:03] Speaker 03: Yes, that's correct. [00:10:08] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:10:08] Speaker 03: That's the one. [00:10:11] Speaker 04: So we believe that we have more than 50% chance that they're going to be detained. [00:10:18] Speaker 03: because of parolees and more than 50% chance are going to have torture through the conditions in the Torture also would need to have specific intent to to torture these people not just that the Conditions are so bad as to amount to torture. [00:10:39] Speaker 03: Is that correct? [00:10:40] Speaker 04: Well, they suspended it and so they redid it again. [00:10:45] Speaker 04: They added the intent to redo [00:10:48] Speaker 04: the whole system, so I believe there's intent. [00:10:51] Speaker 04: They know what the conditions are. [00:10:53] Speaker 03: The intent has to be for specific people, not just for bad conditions, isn't it? [00:10:59] Speaker 04: Well, I mean, they know if there's at some place, one said 27 out of 27 of the deportees were going, were detained. [00:11:09] Speaker 04: So they had, they know where these got, you know, they put 100% at that point and they have some knowledge [00:11:17] Speaker 04: of what's going to happen. [00:11:24] Speaker 01: Let's hear from the government and we'll still give you two minutes for rebuttal. [00:11:35] Speaker 00: May it please the court. [00:11:37] Speaker 00: My name is Kristen Whittaker and I'm here on behalf of the Attorney General of the United States. [00:11:42] Speaker 00: This court should deny the petition for review. [00:11:44] Speaker 00: Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of the petitioner's application for cat deferral. [00:11:49] Speaker 00: Record evidence supports the immigration judge's determination that Dooslis failed to establish a likelihood that he would be subjected to torture in Haiti. [00:11:57] Speaker 00: And Dooslis does not identify any evidence that compels the contrary conclusion. [00:12:02] Speaker 00: Now, Dooslis presented two claims for cat deferral or two sources of [00:12:08] Speaker 00: a risk of torture, one from government officials in detention and one from Haitian gangs. [00:12:15] Speaker 00: So going to detention, what we were talking about previously, I think it's important to note that Douceless does not identify evidence that compels the conclusion that he would be subjected to detention. [00:12:27] Speaker 00: The articles that he's pointing to, say the 27 out of 27, the practice itself was, it was a practice, [00:12:36] Speaker 00: in the past, like in matter of JE, when they referred to the US State Department letter, where it was automatic that someone would be detained upon entering. [00:12:44] Speaker 00: However, the practice stopped in about 2012 to 2013. [00:12:48] Speaker 00: And then those articles say that the practice may have resumed. [00:12:53] Speaker 00: There were reports that it resumed. [00:12:54] Speaker 00: But it didn't compel that conclusion. [00:12:58] Speaker 00: The evidence itself is equivocal. [00:13:00] Speaker 00: And it seems as if the times are in flux, that there is no certainty that he would have been detained. [00:13:06] Speaker 01: Could I ask you, I'm struggling with whether the BIA actually gave the reasons that you're giving. [00:13:14] Speaker 01: So it's possible that this record doesn't have enough information about the frequency of these events for a cat claim to succeed. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: But I didn't understand that to be the basis of the BIA's denial here. [00:13:27] Speaker 01: Can you correct me if I'm wrong? [00:13:29] Speaker 00: So I think it's important to note that the board adopts the immigration judge's decision. [00:13:34] Speaker 00: And the immigration judge specifically says, and I think it's near the end of the detention analysis, but she says, you don't establish that you would be detained. [00:13:43] Speaker 00: So that's the weakest step in that chain. [00:13:46] Speaker 01: But isn't that because the IJ, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the IJ had the misunderstanding that the policy of detaining convicts, returning convicts had ceased. [00:13:57] Speaker 01: But our record shows that [00:13:59] Speaker 01: That's not true. [00:14:00] Speaker 01: So wasn't there a mistake there? [00:14:03] Speaker 00: I don't think there was a mistake there. [00:14:04] Speaker 00: So it said that the process, there were reports and I don't mean to use quotation marks, but there were reports that there may be more people being detained, that it may be widespread. [00:14:14] Speaker 00: But as Judge Boggs noted, these are articles from advocates. [00:14:18] Speaker 00: We don't have anything say from, you know, the U.S. [00:14:20] Speaker 00: State Department indicating that there is a clear indication that a deportee, a criminal deportee would be detained. [00:14:28] Speaker 00: So that was one issue. [00:14:29] Speaker 00: But even if we have the knowledge that he would be detained, he still failed to meet his burden of proof. [00:14:37] Speaker 00: Because if he's detained, he didn't show that he would be subjected to torture. [00:14:42] Speaker 00: And so that analysis also includes multiple parts. [00:14:45] Speaker 00: First, he didn't show that the government officials had specific intent to torture him. [00:14:51] Speaker 00: And I think that's one thing that wasn't really discussed when the petitioner was just now arguing before you, or petitioner's counsel. [00:14:57] Speaker 00: It's important that the government officials only have specific intent when they intend for the consequences of their act. [00:15:07] Speaker 00: So it's not just merely the fact that they place them in detention and they're subjected to poor prison conditions, because that could be from overcrowding, a lack of resources, poverty, et cetera. [00:15:18] Speaker 00: But you have to have the officials detaining them and then knowing and creating and maintaining those conditions to, in fact, torture them. [00:15:26] Speaker 01: And why isn't the extortion allegation and evidence in the record the link that provides what you were just talking about? [00:15:35] Speaker 00: So I want to go to the extortion article that the petitioner was referring to. [00:15:39] Speaker 00: That's exhibit C, and I believe the page number. [00:15:45] Speaker 01: But just as we can talk about whether the extortion is enough, but if someone is put in prison, [00:15:52] Speaker 01: in bad conditions that amount to torture in order to get money from their family, isn't that the intentional? [00:15:58] Speaker 01: Maybe you're about to say something about how frequent it is, but as a conceptual matter, that would be enough intent, wouldn't it? [00:16:04] Speaker 00: Potentially, you could have a situation in which if they are placing them somewhere and they're creating these circumstances and they have that bad intent, that could potentially be a circumstance, but that's not what we have here. [00:16:18] Speaker 00: So first off, the board says [00:16:21] Speaker 00: We're looking at your argument regarding extortion. [00:16:24] Speaker 00: And the article that he refers to and talks about a couple of detainees who were charged various amounts for paperwork, for transferring, and they were also asked for money for release. [00:16:36] Speaker 00: Nowhere does it show that this is extortion that's common. [00:16:41] Speaker 00: It's definitely going to happen. [00:16:42] Speaker 00: But the board said, nonetheless, even if we assume that extortion is going [00:16:46] Speaker 00: you still don't meet your burden of proof. [00:16:49] Speaker 00: First, extortion doesn't rise to the level because, you know, severe suffering and pain. [00:16:56] Speaker 00: Also, you don't show a likelihood. [00:16:59] Speaker 01: So say if there are a couple of bad actors, like I think this was... Sorry, you're making an argument that might be right, but can you point me to where the BIA... It sounds like you're saying the BIA said this. [00:17:10] Speaker 01: Can you point me to where that was? [00:17:11] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:17:12] Speaker 00: So if you look at page four, [00:17:16] Speaker 00: OK, so they talk about the extortion. [00:17:20] Speaker 00: And it says, the respondent petitioner points to an article from a record of a local American newspaper. [00:17:27] Speaker 00: And it talks about the article itself. [00:17:30] Speaker 00: Even assuming, arguing, however, that extortion as described does occur, he still has not met his burden. [00:17:37] Speaker 00: First, he has not shown that mistreatment he fears, including extortion in poor prison conditions, constitutes harm rising to the level of torture. [00:17:45] Speaker 00: In addition, he has not shown that the officials have the requisite specific intent or that is more likely than not that he is singled out for torture upon return to Haiti. [00:17:56] Speaker 00: And again, we have to remember that the board adopted the immigration judges decision as well. [00:18:02] Speaker 00: So it fully addressed the extortion claim. [00:18:05] Speaker 00: And I think it's also important to note [00:18:07] Speaker 01: Sorry, just could you slow down, slow down. [00:18:08] Speaker 01: Tell me what, okay. [00:18:11] Speaker 01: So I thought you conceded a moment ago that extortion would be the right kind of intent. [00:18:17] Speaker 01: So, and are you contesting that the prison conditions amount to torture? [00:18:22] Speaker 01: I guess you read this, but I don't understand. [00:18:25] Speaker 01: I'm not sure this is right. [00:18:26] Speaker 01: So tell me, just go a little slower and explain where you think the cat claim fails. [00:18:34] Speaker 00: Okay, sure. [00:18:35] Speaker 00: Let's take a step back, step back first. [00:18:37] Speaker 00: So we don't have the evidence that the petitioner is asserting the evidence that we have officials who are creating those [00:18:45] Speaker 00: poor prison conditions with the intent to extort. [00:18:48] Speaker 00: We don't have that. [00:18:50] Speaker 00: Remember, like party presentation. [00:18:51] Speaker 01: All right. [00:18:52] Speaker 01: So you think that that is needed? [00:18:54] Speaker 01: You couldn't just have, well, I mean, the state runs the prison. [00:18:57] Speaker 01: And are you saying that the conditions do not rise to the level of torture where people are getting cholera and don't have food and that these conditions are not sufficiently serious? [00:19:07] Speaker 01: Is that part of your argument? [00:19:09] Speaker 00: No. [00:19:10] Speaker 00: So I'm just going back to the original extortion claim. [00:19:13] Speaker 00: So the petitioner is trying to say that the officials are extorting people. [00:19:18] Speaker 00: They're creating these horrible conditions in order to extort. [00:19:22] Speaker 01: So I understood it to be more, they are putting people in these conditions on purpose for the creation of extortion. [00:19:30] Speaker 01: Not necessarily that they created the bad conditions specifically for extortion, but they're taking advantage of the bad conditions for extortion. [00:19:37] Speaker 00: Okay, so that could potentially be a plausible view, but there is no evidence here that compels that conclusion. [00:19:44] Speaker 00: One article that refers to extortion, there's nothing like that. [00:19:47] Speaker 00: Even the advocate says, I liken it to extortion. [00:19:51] Speaker 01: Okay, but what the BIA said is it doesn't rise to the level of torture, which that's the first sentence. [00:19:56] Speaker 01: It doesn't sound like you're relying on that, right? [00:19:58] Speaker 01: You're admitting that's wrong, I think. [00:20:01] Speaker 00: Well, so extortion itself, [00:20:03] Speaker 00: does not necessarily rise the level, but if we have acts that do rise the level you still fail because they don't have the specific intent to torture so you can have instances where you have. [00:20:18] Speaker 00: bad acts, right? [00:20:21] Speaker 01: Okay, but so if you put someone in those conditions that you just said do rise to the level of torture, you put someone in them on purpose to get money from their family until you let them out, does that have intent to torture them in the meantime? [00:20:36] Speaker 00: If I intend to extort and I'm aware that there's a potential consequence of these bad conditions, [00:20:42] Speaker 00: Specific intent is very, very narrow. [00:20:45] Speaker 00: You have to maintain and create those conditions. [00:20:48] Speaker 00: It can't be pure reckless or negligence. [00:20:52] Speaker 00: It has to be that you are intending for that to occur. [00:20:56] Speaker 00: So simply because I placed you in prison and there is a possibility that you could get cholera or that you die of malnutrition, I did not have the specific intent for that to occur. [00:21:07] Speaker 00: I could have the specific intent to extort from you, but I do not intend for that torture to occur. [00:21:14] Speaker 03: So is there any indication that these American returnees are treated any worse than anyone else in the Haitian prisons? [00:21:27] Speaker 00: No, there is no evidence of that. [00:21:29] Speaker 00: And this also goes to the likelihood. [00:21:32] Speaker 00: So the immigration judge, again, had multiple steps. [00:21:34] Speaker 00: We don't have specific intent. [00:21:36] Speaker 00: We also don't have likelihood. [00:21:38] Speaker 00: You know, everyone is suffering from these conditions. [00:21:42] Speaker 00: where they could be from poverty, the earthquake, overcrowding, the president's assassination, multiple factors. [00:21:49] Speaker 00: And they haven't shown that the criminal deportees are being subjected to any particular risk of torture or likelihood of torture. [00:21:57] Speaker 01: If they're being put, okay, so the first step is they're detained when they return, if they have criminal records. [00:22:04] Speaker 01: If they are put into these terrible condition prisons, [00:22:08] Speaker 01: with the idea that by putting them there, the conditions will be so terrible that the family is going to try to get them out because they know they're essentially being tortured. [00:22:15] Speaker 01: You're still saying that's not enough intent? [00:22:18] Speaker 00: I'm not saying exactly in that hypothetical potentially, but that's not what happened here. [00:22:23] Speaker 00: We don't have that evidence that compels that conclusion. [00:22:27] Speaker 01: We don't even have that evidence. [00:22:28] Speaker 01: I think it's possible that we don't know how frequent this is, but I am having trouble understanding whether we need to remand this for the agency to consider this argument because it seems like [00:22:40] Speaker 01: The steps of logic of why this would be a cat claim, I'm really struggling with seeing anywhere where they fail, other than maybe that this doesn't happen frequently enough. [00:22:50] Speaker 01: But I don't see anything in the BIA's opinion that says that that's the problem. [00:22:56] Speaker 01: It says a bunch of things that seem wrong. [00:23:00] Speaker 00: And you're talking just in regards to the extortion. [00:23:02] Speaker 01: So say if the theory would be criminal detainees are all criminal, sorry, criminal returnees are all detained. [00:23:10] Speaker 01: They are put in these prisons that have torturous conditions for the purpose of extortion. [00:23:16] Speaker 01: And that all seems to mean that the specific people with the criminal records are going to be tortured intentionally. [00:23:24] Speaker 01: Now, maybe your argument is that doesn't happen frequently enough. [00:23:28] Speaker 01: But the BIA instead seems to say there's not enough intent and it doesn't rise the level of torture, but those things seem wrong. [00:23:35] Speaker 01: So you may be right that the record doesn't compel the right, that he's right, but I don't know that we can affirm the agency on the grounds that we're given here. [00:23:45] Speaker 00: I think that we have to tread carefully because I think that it's important to rely on the party presentation doctrine. [00:23:50] Speaker 00: And that's not really the claim that was presented before us with the evidence that was before us. [00:23:55] Speaker 00: The article regarding extortion is very vague. [00:23:58] Speaker 00: It doesn't necessarily show that extortion in effect occurs. [00:24:02] Speaker 00: And the board specifically says that, saying even assuming you still fail to meet your burden, because one, extortion does not rise to the level of torture. [00:24:11] Speaker 00: So even if that's a bad act, right, if you have that, it doesn't rise to the level of torture. [00:24:16] Speaker 00: Two, okay, if you have something that does rise to the level of torture, you don't show that the government itself has a specific intent to torture you. [00:24:26] Speaker 00: And then three, you haven't shown that you would be subjected to or you have a likelihood of torture. [00:24:32] Speaker 00: So even if there are bad acts that are occurring, even if there are instances of torture, bad things, again, like I think what's a good example are the, you know, psychiatric facilities in Mexico looking at those. [00:24:46] Speaker 00: Bad things can happen there, but the petitioner didn't, you know, [00:24:50] Speaker 00: need their burden to prove because they didn't show the likelihood. [00:24:52] Speaker 01: But I think in the case you're referring to, well, OK, if it's likelihood, I just still don't see where that is really what the agency is saying. [00:24:59] Speaker 01: It seems like the agency is saying it doesn't rise to the level of torture, which I think you keep going back and forth. [00:25:06] Speaker 01: But at some moments of this argument, you've said these conditions are bad enough for torture. [00:25:10] Speaker 01: And you've also said, I think at some moments at least, [00:25:15] Speaker 01: putting them there on purpose to get money would be an intent, an intentional use of the conditions as torture. [00:25:22] Speaker 01: And then there's the question of whether you're singled out, but I think you're singled out because you're a criminal, someone with a criminal record who goes through this process, right? [00:25:30] Speaker 01: So I'm still not understanding. [00:25:33] Speaker 01: It's possible the agency on remand, if we send it back, could say, look, there's just not enough people having this happen to them. [00:25:40] Speaker 01: But, [00:25:41] Speaker 05: Well, the BIA does say later that there hasn't shown a widespread infliction of harm in Haitian prisons rising to the level of torture. [00:25:54] Speaker 05: So I had sort of understood that line to be making some of the points we're talking about, but it comes later in the discussion. [00:26:02] Speaker 00: There's also page 54 of the immigration judge's decision, page 12 of the immigration judge's [00:26:10] Speaker 00: The respondent failed to present evidence indicating a likelihood of suffering forms of abuse that would rise to the level of constituting torture in their severity. [00:26:18] Speaker 00: It's in there. [00:26:22] Speaker 00: It's not perfect. [00:26:23] Speaker 00: But if the path is discernible, reasonably discernible, mean die, we should be able to know that the agency considered all the evidence and found that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof. [00:26:35] Speaker 00: And the board specifically acknowledged his extortion arguments that remain the same. [00:26:41] Speaker 00: And it's just not supported by the record. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: I'm way over my time. [00:26:46] Speaker 00: So it's all right. [00:26:49] Speaker 00: I'll go ahead and conclude, unless you would like to ask further questions. [00:26:55] Speaker 01: It looks like we may have asked all our questions. [00:26:57] Speaker 01: So go ahead and conclude, please. [00:26:59] Speaker 00: All right. [00:26:59] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:26:59] Speaker 00: In conclusion, please deny the petition for review. [00:27:09] Speaker 04: Basically, none of the documents were objected to. [00:27:14] Speaker 04: Clearly, when there's extortion, there's intent. [00:27:16] Speaker 04: They know what's going to happen if they don't pay. [00:27:18] Speaker 04: The conditions in the jails are deplorable. [00:27:23] Speaker 04: I mean, the call or death. [00:27:26] Speaker 04: So, we believe they had the intent. [00:27:30] Speaker 04: It's over 50% on each leg. [00:27:33] Speaker 04: That's it, Your Honor. [00:27:34] Speaker 03: There's a point in the testimony before the IJ. [00:27:37] Speaker 03: where the IJ asks you, can you point to where in your evidence it says that deportees or detained are beaten or subjected to other kinds of harm, which may have no purpose other than to intentionally cause severe pain and suffering. [00:27:57] Speaker 03: And you start to say, well, in his testimony, the IJ says you can't rely on the testimony [00:28:03] Speaker 03: What can you point out that says they're doing it for no purpose other than to intentionally cause pain? [00:28:11] Speaker 03: And the transcript says, I don't see any, Your Honor. [00:28:15] Speaker 03: Did you have a better answer that you didn't get at that moment? [00:28:20] Speaker 04: I would say that they knew what the conditions are and therefore they're putting them in a position where they know if they don't pay the ransom, [00:28:31] Speaker 04: extortion, they're going to be in a position where they're not going to have food, not going to have clothing, they're not going to get medical. [00:28:37] Speaker 03: So, I mean... So the same conditions that everyone else in the prison is subjected to, is that correct? [00:28:44] Speaker 03: True, but to get there, [00:28:47] Speaker 04: They extorted him. [00:28:50] Speaker 04: The other people are in a different position because presumably they have criminal acts, they're going to court, or they've been jailed. [00:28:59] Speaker 03: I thought the records showed 80% of them were pretrial detainees. [00:29:06] Speaker 04: While ours are being held, they complain about there's no charges, so they are being treated differently. [00:29:16] Speaker 04: So they basically are being detained to extort without having any charges. [00:29:23] Speaker 04: It's basically to extort so they can make money. [00:29:26] Speaker 04: And they know that the conditions at the jail are deplorable. [00:29:32] Speaker 04: I mean, I could go in detail, but it's pretty obvious that people are dying of getting cholera. [00:29:37] Speaker 04: People are dying. [00:29:39] Speaker 04: They have no food. [00:29:40] Speaker 04: And so I think [00:29:45] Speaker 04: that was potentially met a burden. [00:29:51] Speaker 01: Thank you, both sides. [00:29:52] Speaker 01: We've taken you both over your time. [00:29:53] Speaker 01: We appreciate your arguments today. [00:29:55] Speaker 01: Thank you for appearing, and this case is submitted. [00:29:58] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:29:59] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honors. [00:30:00] Speaker 04: I'm not used to having one. [00:30:02] Speaker 04: Have a nice day. [00:30:05] Speaker 03: This court for this session stands adjourned.