[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
Good morning, your honors, and may it please the court.

[00:00:02] Speaker 05:
My name is Salas Kim, and I'm here on behalf of petitioners, Sarah Lizeth, Miranda Perez, and her three children.

[00:00:08] Speaker 05:
I'd like to reserve six minutes for rebuttal.

[00:00:11] Speaker 02:
Would you move the mic down a little bit?

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
Just keep an eye on the clock.

[00:00:17] Speaker 05:
This case ultimately hinges on what motivated petitioners as primary persecutor to sub.

[00:00:23] Speaker 05:
A mafia leader in Mexico whose escalating campaign of violence against this specific family over the course of approximately 18 months forced them to flee to the United States in fear of their lives in October of 2013.

[00:00:36] Speaker 05:
Relying solely on its no nexus finding, the agency denied both asylum and withholding, but in doing so, committed factual and legal errors.

[00:00:44] Speaker 05:
In further denying protection under CAT, it committed additional legal errors.

[00:00:48] Speaker 05:
Turning first to the issue of nexus, the agency found that what this family experienced was mere ordinary crime through extortion or retribution as opposed to any violence based on the family's relationship to Fernando.

[00:01:00] Speaker 05:
who was Sari's husband, the children's father figure, the center of the family-based particular social group, family members of Fernando, and who was the very man that Tusa himself admitted to killing in September of 2012.

[00:01:14] Speaker 05:
Not only did Tusa brutally kill Fernando, who was found with his hands and feet bound, his head covered with shots to the head and abdomen, Tusa regularly issued death threats against the family, shot at the family home twice, once in the middle of the night and the other while the three children and grandmother were inside the home, killed Fernando's nephew, and then further physically accosted Sari in the street, grabbing her by the neck, pulling his weapon, admitting to murdering Fernando, and then threatening her life.

[00:01:43] Speaker 05:
I'd first like to briefly address the BIA's language itself on page five of the record.

[00:01:48] Speaker 05:
You'll see exactly how the BIA had treated this.

[00:01:52] Speaker 05:
It's stated, quote, retribution or retaliation is harm inflicted only for personal reasons, not on account of a protected ground and therefore would not constitute persecution for asylum purposes.

[00:02:04] Speaker 01:
If you read that in isolation, it sounds like that's not correct.

[00:02:09] Speaker 05:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:02:10] Speaker 01:
But should it be read in full context of the entire paragraph?

[00:02:16] Speaker 05:
When you do look at the rest of that paragraph on page five of the record, you will see, however, right before it does speak about extortion separately and it does say the language that is missing from this specific sentence.

[00:02:29] Speaker 05:
So if I could direct your attention.

[00:02:30] Speaker 01:
Well, it could have been a little bit.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
It struck me that if you looked at that paragraph in full context, that that statement that you read was just referring to the particular facts of this case.

[00:02:45] Speaker 05:
Not necessarily, Your Honor.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
Again, I would like to... Well, let me ask you this.

[00:02:50] Speaker 01:
Could the BIA read it?

[00:02:51] Speaker 01:
Is that a reasonable interpretation of what the BIA did here?

[00:02:55] Speaker 05:
No, Your Honor, that would not be a reasonable interpretation.

[00:02:57] Speaker 05:
And again, I would like to place that within the context of that paragraph.

[00:03:01] Speaker 05:
So if you just look a couple sentences right before, when it speaks about extortion specifically, it does say extortion without a demonstrated nexus to a protected ground.

[00:03:10] Speaker 05:
There's absolutely no reason to see how that wouldn't have been also placed within this sentence.

[00:03:15] Speaker 05:
And so if you read that sentence, it is plainly wrong as a matter of law and goes against this court's precedent, specifically in Carr.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
But what about the sentence before the one that, extortion without a demonstrated nexus, where it refers to the IJ's factual finding that the extortionist was only motivated by the prospect of pecuniary gain?

[00:03:36] Speaker 05:
Although it may seem that the BIA had adopted that factual finding from the IJ, it did add this additional sentence, making it a separate legal error.

[00:03:45] Speaker 05:
Even if your Honours do not believe there is a legal error, there is the actual factual error that occurred, given the record.

[00:03:52] Speaker 03:
I understand you have an argument about the factual error, but before we get to that, I mean,

[00:03:56] Speaker 03:
If that's how we read the sentence I just read as adopting a factual finding that he was motivated only by the prospect of pecuniary gain, if that's what they found, would you agree on that fact that there's no nexus?

[00:04:15] Speaker 05:
If what was found is there was absolutely no evidence of a family-based motive here, or any animus against the family, then there would be no nexus because there's no protected grant.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
Right, but isn't that what it means?

[00:04:25] Speaker 03:
I mean, if he's only motivated by the prospect of puny or egane, then he's not motivated by anything else, right?

[00:04:33] Speaker 03:
I mean, they may be wrong, but that's what that sentence means, isn't it?

[00:04:38] Speaker 05:
I do see exactly how you would read it that way.

[00:04:41] Speaker 05:
However, I think it is important to look at the specific facts of this case, because it does compel the contrary conclusion that a family-based motive did exist.

[00:04:48] Speaker 05:
So if I could turn to the specific parts of the record.

[00:04:51] Speaker 05:
To address the fact that this was not pure extortion, the family didn't have money to afford the quota payments at times, and TUSA did know this, but the violence itself did not cease.

[00:05:01] Speaker 05:
Furthermore, Sari had lived in this neighborhood of 500 people, all of whom she had known since she had lived there for almost 23 years at that point, her entire life.

[00:05:10] Speaker 05:
And there was no knowledge or no one else in the neighborhood had been attacked even remotely close to this level of severity.

[00:05:17] Speaker 05:
No other homes were shot at, no other family members were killed from other family units.

[00:05:22] Speaker 05:
This was very clearly a specific targeted campaign against Sari and her family based on their relationship to Fernando.

[00:05:29] Speaker 05:
You will see that there is clear escalation in the record, specifically when Tusa had killed Fernando in September of 2012.

[00:05:38] Speaker 05:
You will see that right after that, days after he had approached Sari, threatening her directly and stating that she had, quote, seen what he was capable of, that's on page 158, or 133 and 158,

[00:05:51] Speaker 05:
And that's clearly referring exactly to the incidents that occurred days before.

[00:05:58] Speaker 05:
Fernando had been arrested with no explanation by the local police.

[00:06:02] Speaker 05:
Just hours later, he was found dead.

[00:06:05] Speaker 05:
He had gone out searching for work that day.

[00:06:07] Speaker 05:
and Sarie had received a ransom call.

[00:06:10] Speaker 05:
She told the caller that she would get the money for the release of her husband.

[00:06:15] Speaker 05:
This extortionist did not wait for the money and instead killed Fernando.

[00:06:20] Speaker 05:
And so that shows that this couldn't have just been mere extortion or even retribution at that point.

[00:06:26] Speaker 05:
You will also see further in June 2013 when Tusa had then approached Sarie once more grabbing her by the- Let me ask you this.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
So what if the BIA

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
just determined everything you just said just isn't enough.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
There is substantial evidence that when we look at all the evidence in the record, it's substantial and it supports that.

[00:06:54] Speaker 01:
What's his name?

[00:06:56] Speaker 01:
His only motive was retribution.

[00:07:00] Speaker 05:
That would not be a proper reading.

[00:07:03] Speaker 05:
And that's exactly why here, given the record, our case is most similar to Corpano Romero, a recent case from this court.

[00:07:11] Speaker 05:
The facts are almost virtually identical there.

[00:07:13] Speaker 05:
It was a mother and son who were petitioners.

[00:07:15] Speaker 05:
The father was also the center of the family-based particular social group.

[00:07:19] Speaker 05:
The father was killed by these gang members.

[00:07:21] Speaker 05:
The gang members were then imprisoned.

[00:07:22] Speaker 05:
and once released they sought out the family and this court found that there were both a family based protected motive as well as either retaliation or trying to recruit the son there.

[00:07:35] Speaker 05:
Here this is very similar.

[00:07:36] Speaker 05:
You'll see that Tusa killed Fernando, was briefly detained by the military for just a few months, once released immediately sought out Ceri and then threatened her in the same way.

[00:07:45] Speaker 05:
And I think the nature of those threats are quite important.

[00:07:49] Speaker 05:
So there

[00:07:50] Speaker 05:
this court did find that the fact that it was the same persecutor, the same people who were in prison and then were released and then sought out the family, that was powerful evidence coupled with also the death threats that were being issued.

[00:08:03] Speaker 01:
So, let me ask you this.

[00:08:05] Speaker 01:
So, it appears that the board somewhat conflated the standard

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
withholding along with its determination on asylum.

[00:08:24] Speaker 01:
What do we take of that?

[00:08:27] Speaker 05:
The BIA itself actually did not even conduct a separate analysis for withholding, finding that what it had stated under the asylum standard was enough.

[00:08:35] Speaker 05:
But our position is also that it did not properly conduct the mixed motives analysis, so it didn't even conduct the analysis for asylum correctly, since it did just preclude a protected ground based off of its conclusion of extortion or retribution.

[00:08:49] Speaker 05:
but for withholding specifically there is enough evidence in the record and we only need some evidence that is not unambiguous and that's the standard there and there is sufficient more than enough.

[00:09:00] Speaker 01:
This gets me to the whole idea of whether or not you could prevail on withholding alone or whether that's possible without setting aside the holding on asylum.

[00:09:16] Speaker 01:
Does that make sense?

[00:09:17] Speaker 05:
Yes, however, we would request that the court remand to redo both to properly conduct the analyses under both separate NEXA standards.

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
We do believe that, again, the record here does compel... With respect to the signing, would it be for legal error or lack of substantial evidence?

[00:09:38] Speaker 05:
We do posit that there are both legal and factual errors here.

[00:09:43] Speaker 05:
If you'd like to remand it for the legal error to just redo the entire analysis, or if it's under factual error and substantial evidence doesn't support the agency's finding, we would request that this court find for nexus and then remand for the remaining asylum elements there.

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
And why is the difference in the nexus standard for withholding an asylum matter here?

[00:10:06] Speaker 03:
It matters in cases where they say, well, you know, there's some evidence of nexus but not enough and then the difference matters.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
But here, the board rightly or wrongly seems to have thought that there was no evidence of any nexus to a protected ground.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
So, if given that finding, then their sloppiness in describing the withholding standard doesn't really matter, does it?

[00:10:30] Speaker 05:
If it were true that the record contained no evidence of a family-based motive, then it is true that withholding doesn't require a separate analysis.

[00:10:37] Speaker 05:
However, our position, again, is that the record does compel the contrary conclusion, and there is, again, some evidence, all of which I've mentioned thus far, that does require the agency to have done a separate withholding analysis.

[00:10:50] Speaker 05:
So that part is both because of the record and also because the BIA, in its language, in its decision, just completely ignored the withholding standard entirely.

[00:10:59] Speaker 05:
and that is unacceptable in this case.

[00:11:03] Speaker 03:
All right, we've taken you into your rebuttal time, so we'll let you save the rest of the time.

[00:11:08] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
There's the keynote.

[00:11:22] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:11:23] Speaker 00:
This may please the court, Joanna Belloquino, for the respondent.

[00:11:27] Speaker 00:
As this court has recognized, to meet your burden for asylum and withholding,

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
you need to show that the harm that you experience and fear would be on account of a protected ground.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
And here, Ms.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
Miranda was quite clear in her testimony.

[00:11:45] Speaker 00:
She said it at least five times that this was all about money.

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
And I will start with page 122 of the record.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
She said that that's when initially TUSA began charging them money is because they didn't... I'm sorry, what page are you on?

[00:12:00] Speaker 00:
122 of the record, Your Honor.

[00:12:02] Speaker 00:
She explained that when they began selling vegetables,

[00:12:05] Speaker 00:
That's when Tusa just began charging them money.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
And then at page 160, she explained that while he was known for charging many other people in the community for quotas, he was particularly interested in her because she was selling vegetables.

[00:12:20] Speaker 00:
And then at 122 to 123, she says, when they weren't able to pay Tusa anymore, he responded by threatening them and told them that they had to pay him.

[00:12:29] Speaker 00:
Then at 133, after Fernando's death, she says that, well,

[00:12:34] Speaker 00:
that Tusa had come to confront her and said that she had seen what he was capable of and that he wanted money for the quota.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
And finally, at 136 to 137, after he was released from detention and confronted her, he said to her to get the money that she still owed him.

[00:12:53] Speaker 00:
And during all of these encounters, not once does she mention that Tusa had an animus against Fernando's family members.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
And in every one of these encounters, he brings up money.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
And so first and foremost, that is the primary motivation he had for going after this family.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
And then it does turn into revenge at one point, because he does mistaken for her testimony, Matusa mistakenly believes that she may have reported him to the military and caused his arrest.

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
But even in that encounter, when she is asked by her attorney

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
what Tusa meant when he said to her that she would pay for it.

[00:13:35] Speaker 00:
She said that I was going to pay for the months that he was detained.

[00:13:38] Speaker 00:
There is no mention, again, of a family, of an animus to Fernando's family in any of these encounters.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
And if she was found credible, and if we're to take her for her word, then this is all about family, or this is all about money and revenge.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
But there was other evidence that he

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
Threatened other family members her son.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
Yes He shot up or he or his associates are together Shot up the house While they were in it Yes, right.

[00:14:15] Speaker 00:
Yes, but again your honor that doesn't necessarily show that that this was all about family by her own words this was all about money and I'm not mistaken His

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
his murder was after several of the threats, is that right?

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
After the first shooting, yes, after the first time their house was shot up, he was allegedly killed while he was out looking for work.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:14:50] Speaker 00:
But again, there's nothing in that encounter that suggests that...

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
Tusa, we don't know.

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
I mean, there may have been other reasons why Tusa killed her husband.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:15:09] Speaker 00:
And that's precisely the issue here, Your Honor.

[00:15:11] Speaker 00:
The record needs to compel that this was all about family, if they want to meet their burden here.

[00:15:15] Speaker 00:
But we don't know exactly why Fernando was killed.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
They say that he was

[00:15:21] Speaker 00:
out looking for work and that he was last seen in the company of police officers, but we don't know what happened in that time that led to his death.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
We don't know exactly what was the reason that he died.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
She received a ransom call from an unknown person, supposedly asking for a ransom for the release of Ferdando, but we don't know what ultimately who kills him and how it comes about.

[00:15:52] Speaker 01:
So at the end of the day, the only evidence in the record that- You take from his comments that he acknowledged that he was the one who either killed or had her husband.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
I mean, we can take him for- He made some pretty direct statements, too.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:16:10] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
And we can agree that he may have taken credit for the murder.

[00:16:16] Speaker 00:
But again, we don't know.

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
There's nothing in his taking credit that references

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
the family again.

[00:16:22] Speaker 00:
This is not like in, I know my colleagues had mentioned Corpeno Romero, but this is a very distinguishable case from there where there was direct evidence that the gang members that were targeting Corpeno Romero's son in that case investigated him for eight years.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
When they confronted him face to face, they

[00:16:44] Speaker 00:
called him a very derogatory term while referring to him as the son of Carlos.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And we don't have any evidence of that in this case here.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
I think this case is actually more analogous to Rodriguez-Suniga, where Miss Rodriguez, while she was coming out of a bank, was extorted by an extortionist who demanded that she give her money.

[00:17:08] Speaker 00:
And when she refused, the extortionist said, I'm going to go after your son.

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what we have here.

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
the family as a pressure point to get what they wanted.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
They reference the family as a pressure point to get the money or to, yes, to try and get them to pay the money that Tusa believed that he owed.

[00:17:29] Speaker 00:
But at no point do they reference any animus towards Fernando's family.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
And I think it actually undermines their claim that Ms.

[00:17:39] Speaker 00:
Miranda had said that Tusa was known

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
in the community for charging other people, and she's never made the claim that those other people in the community were somehow related to Fernando or that he had a family.

[00:17:50] Speaker 01:
So you don't think the shooting of the house and the other circumstances that they point to is just no evidence that family motive might have been a factor?

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
I think, Your Honor, I think your repeated interest in them is not the same as Nexus.

[00:18:11] Speaker 01:
And while it shows that he's... How about for purposes of withholding of removal?

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
Well, even for withholding of removal... In the lower, it's not essential.

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:18:22] Speaker 01:
You don't need a central reason, you need a reason.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
Right, Your Honor.

[00:18:27] Speaker 01:
But you still need the higher burden of proof.

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
And I understand that the petitioners are making the argument that

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
there should have been a mixed motive analysis done here, but this is not the case where a mixed motive analysis should have been done and the agency failed to do so.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
This is a case where here the agency specifically acknowledged that there are three potential motives in this case, and I would point the court to page 52 first, and that's the IJ decision.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
IJ clearly considered three potential motives when she says

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
They fear that based upon them being a part of Fernando's family, the fact that Tusa believes the lead respondent reported him to the military, which resulted in his arrest, and her failure to continue to pay the extortion fees that resulted in the threats the respondents suffered and their ultimate decision to flee the country.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
So to be clear, she considered family as a potential motive, revenge for reporting, and their failure to pay the extortion.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
But based on the evidence before her, the immigration judge concluded that really,

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
The evidence supported the conclusions that only two of those motives, revenge for reporting and failure to pay extortion, were the reasons why TUSA was motivated in targeting them.

[00:19:41] Speaker 00:
And the board, in reviewing this decision, as was noted during the opening on pages four to five, the board also clearly acknowledged that the petitioners here were claiming

[00:19:55] Speaker 00:
that family could be a basis for asylum or withholding a removal here, but the record did not support that simply because for the reasons that I had stated, every time she had an encounter with TUSA, she says that it was about money.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
Your friend began by reading the last sentence of that paragraph that carries over from four to five.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
Retribution or retaliation is harm inflicted only for personal reasons, not on account of a protected ground.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Do you agree that if we were just looking at that in isolation, that that is an overly broad statement?

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
I think if you look at it in isolation, in just that one sentence, then it is problematic.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
But the problem is here is that we can't just look at this in isolation.

[00:20:42] Speaker 00:
It's clearly the context says they were considering that family could potentially be a motive here.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
And the immigration judge was quite clear about that too.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
And, you know, like if all we were to, if we were just to look at that in isolation, it's that they would themselves also be ignoring all of the evidence in the record that says that this is about other things too.

[00:21:10] Speaker 00:
So, you know, so at the end of the day, the record here is quite clear that there was no need for a mixed mode of analysis here.

[00:21:20] Speaker 00:
There was no need for, you know,

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
for being quite clear about separating the standards for asylum and withholding of removal.

[00:21:31] Speaker 00:
Because as was stated, even if the motive may not have been central or a reason, it doesn't matter because the record here supports the conclusion that this was never about a protected ground.

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
This was only about retribution and money.

[00:21:48] Speaker 01:
So would you say it's just harmless error in your view?

[00:21:52] Speaker 00:
I would say that, yes, it is harmless, Erin, in our view, that just because the agency didn't necessarily repeat the language of Barajas Romero, of the A reason, it doesn't necessarily mean I didn't do that correct analysis.

[00:22:06] Speaker 02:
Right, but under withholding, all you need is one A reason, not a central reason.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
And it doesn't appear that they considered that.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
It just says, having failed to meet the higher burden of proof of asylum, the respondent cannot meet the higher burden of establishing a clear probability of persecution for withholding.

[00:22:27] Speaker 02:
It doesn't say, well, here's, we look at Brahas, here are three reasons there's a different standard for withholding, and they didn't satisfy it.

[00:22:37] Speaker 02:
They just said, because he didn't establish asylum, they didn't establish withholding.

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
But again, Your Honor, like it... You have to read a lot into it to see, to think that they considered that.

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
Respectfully, Your Honor... Go ahead, sorry.

[00:22:52] Speaker 00:
Respectfully, Your Honor, I would disagree because again, as the record clearly shows, the agency specifically found that family was not emotive here.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
So there was really no need to do a separate analysis on withholding of removal.

[00:23:10] Speaker 00:
because it was never a reason much less one central reason here.

[00:23:14] Speaker 00:
And substantial evidence supports their determination that this is all about money and retribution considering their own testimony.

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
So why isn't retribution part of the family analysis?

[00:23:23] Speaker 02:
I'm not quite sure I understand.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
Well, at the end of the day, there's by her own words, they've never, she's, Tusa has never told, never referenced the family in.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
No, I understand your argument but I mean,

[00:23:38] Speaker 02:
Taking retribution alone, why can't that be considered as part of the family unit?

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
There's retribution against somebody and it looks like it's a family unit.

[00:23:52] Speaker 00:
He was seeking retribution, Tusa was specifically seeking retribution for the fact that he was arrested.

[00:23:57] Speaker 00:
The fact that Miss Miranda may have been related to Fernando had nothing to do with this.

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
If she had just simply reported him and he was not aware of a family motive

[00:24:08] Speaker 00:
I think given his interest in them, I think it would also, it demonstrates that he would have gone after her regardless of that family relationship.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
The family relationship really here was just a means to an end of getting what they wanted, or for Tusa to get what he wanted, but it had nothing to do with him actually going, his motivation for going after them in the first place.

[00:24:38] Speaker 03:
But I guess I think in some context, you would agree, I take it, that you could have retribution against a family, right?

[00:24:47] Speaker 03:
I mean, like a blood feud is all about retribution against somebody because of their status.

[00:24:54] Speaker 00:
Yes, and that's exactly what happened in Corpano Romero.

[00:24:57] Speaker 00:
But that's not the facts that we have here, Your Honor.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
And here, again, there was absolutely no reference to family.

[00:25:04] Speaker 00:
There was no evidence, like in Corpano Romero,

[00:25:07] Speaker 00:
they investigated this family or even made any sort of reference to their familial relationship.

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
It was always when the children were brought up or when Fernando or Ms.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
Miranda herself was brought up in these threats, it was always a pressure point to get them to get what he wanted.

[00:25:23] Speaker 00:
It was always about to get the money or to get the retribution.

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
It wasn't because he never said that I specifically had something against Fernando and anyone related to him.

[00:25:32] Speaker 00:
So because substantial evidence supports the agency's determination, we would ask that the petition review be denied on these grounds.

[00:25:54] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:55] Speaker 03:
We'll give you six minutes.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:25:58] Speaker 03:
Malley?

[00:25:59] Speaker 04:
I'd like to briefly address two points, first regarding Nexus and second briefly regarding the agency's errors under CAT.

[00:26:10] Speaker 04:
First, my colleague on the other side asserts that this has to be all about family, but this is precisely what the agency did wrong.

[00:26:19] Speaker 04:
It precluded the family-based motive based on its findings of extortion and retribution.

[00:26:25] Speaker 04:
And that is exactly what's wrong with the agency's analysis here.

[00:26:29] Speaker 04:
The family-based motive need not be the only central reason.

[00:26:33] Speaker 04:
It just must be one central reason.

[00:26:36] Speaker 04:
And here, the evidence that my colleague outlined shows that it at least met the one central reason standard.

[00:26:43] Speaker 04:
Even if this court is not convinced that substantial evidence supports of the family-based motive is one central reason, the agency separately failed by not even applying the weaker A reason standard for withholding, as Your Honours recognized.

[00:27:01] Speaker 04:
Here, under the withholding standard, the error is committed exactly as in Garcia.

[00:27:08] Speaker 04:
The agency here committed the same reasoning as in Garcia by failing to even apply the separate standard and rather reasoning based on the overall burden of likelihood of future persecution, which the agency did not even reach.

[00:27:25] Speaker 01:
Here, there is at least some... Well, the government's argument that we just heard was that

[00:27:31] Speaker 01:
We didn't need to do that because the board found that there was only one reason in play here and that was money.

[00:27:40] Speaker 04:
Your Honor.

[00:27:41] Speaker 01:
What do you say about that?

[00:27:42] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, substantial evidence does not support that there is absolutely no evidence of nexus as your Honor.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
On the family.

[00:27:51] Speaker 04:
Exactly, for the family-based motive.

[00:27:54] Speaker 04:
For example, on page 139 to 140 of the record, Sarie testified that since he had killed my husband, I had reported him to the military.

[00:28:04] Speaker 04:
This shows that the retributive motive is linked to the family-based motive, and therefore, as the agency recognized, there was a retributive motive, but there was also a family-based motive.

[00:28:17] Speaker 04:
So it is incorrect to uphold the agency's decision that there is no evidence of NAXIS.

[00:28:24] Speaker 04:
For remand under this withholding error, the standard is that the evidence is quote, not unambiguous as to the motive.

[00:28:33] Speaker 04:
There in Garcia, this court did not separately apply the a reason standard to the evidence, rather it looked at whether there was some evidence that required the agency to then properly apply the withholding nexus standard to the evidence.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
And this is exactly what this court should do here.

[00:28:55] Speaker 04:
If there are no further questions regarding Nexus, I'd like to turn briefly to the agency's errors regarding CAT.

[00:29:02] Speaker 04:
First, Sari properly exhausted all of her arguments under CAT.

[00:29:08] Speaker 04:
Agency committed several independently reversible legal errors under CAT.

[00:29:14] Speaker 04:
It failed to consider highly probative evidence, including the country conditions reports in its entirety.

[00:29:21] Speaker 04:
In Aguilar Ramos, this court recognized that country conditions evidence is given special weight in removal proceedings and that this error requires remand for the CAT claim.

[00:29:33] Speaker 04:
the agency failed to consider evidence of the police's detention of Fernando hours before he was killed.

[00:29:41] Speaker 04:
And this is especially important in light of the fact that in the months leading up to this, to so, excuse me, Sarah witnessed to subribing police in broad daylight.

[00:29:53] Speaker 04:
And this shows, this evidence is important to the government acquiescence analysis.

[00:30:00] Speaker 03:
I mean, even if we agree with you on acquiescence, does acquiescence matter unless you can also overcome the finding of ability to relocate?

[00:30:11] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, because the agency erred here in its finding of acquiescence, this court should remand for the agency to properly

[00:30:22] Speaker 04:
do the entire likelihood of future torture analysis.

[00:30:25] Speaker 03:
But why?

[00:30:27] Speaker 03:
If the finding of ability to internally relocate stands, why does the error on acquiescence matter if there is an error?

[00:30:38] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, the CAAT regulations require that the agency look at all of the elements and all of the evidence together.

[00:30:47] Speaker 04:
And we also, our position is that the agency also aired in its internal relocation analysis by failing to consider evidence.

[00:30:56] Speaker 04:
I see my time has elapsed.

[00:30:58] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:31:00] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:31:01] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:31:02] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:31:03] Speaker 03:
Molley.

[00:31:05] Speaker 03:
And Ms.

[00:31:07] Speaker 03:
Kim, you're representing Petitioner Pro Bono and the court thanks you for your service.

[00:31:12] Speaker 03:
We thank all counsel for their helpful arguments and the cases submitted.