[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:00:02] Speaker 03:
May it please the court.

[00:00:03] Speaker 03:
Nathan Zasel on behalf of the petitioners, Labardo Rivera and his family, his wife and two children.

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
I'd like to reserve two minutes time for rebuttal.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
What we're asking this court is to take the same view as the immigration judge took at the conclusion of the evidentiary record in this matter.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
And that was on October 23rd.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
When the case was fresh in his mind and two months before the written decision,

[00:00:28] Speaker 03:
He indicated to counsel that argument would not be necessary, as he views the dispositive issue in this case to be credibility.

[00:00:37] Speaker 03:
And this case spanned over many hearings, and credibility was certainly an issue.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
But the judge wanted two months to review that issue only.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
In other words, asylum should have been granted in this case.

[00:00:54] Speaker 03:
if the testimony of Labardo was granted was given full evidentiary weight, which it ultimately was.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
He found positive credibility in his decision in December of 2023.

[00:01:04] Speaker 03:
However, the judge did deny the case on three grounds.

[00:01:10] Speaker 03:
Number one was the issue of nexus under the one central reason test.

[00:01:14] Speaker 03:
The second ground was whether or not the government of Columbia was unwilling or unable to protect the petitioners.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
And the third was the issue of internal relocation.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
Turning to the issue of Nexus, we submit that on this record, a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find that under mixed motive analysis, one central reason for Labardo's persecution was on account of his actual and imputed political opinion, and not just because of his automotive skills at Hino Motors.

[00:01:47] Speaker 03:
He was active in groups that were considered anti-FARC,

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
That is, they contributed to the community and they were viewed as enemies by FARC.

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
Direct proof of this in the record is he was called a traitor by FARC.

[00:02:03] Speaker 03:
He was told to stop community outreach as it interfered with FARC.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
And this is what he was told by his persecutors.

[00:02:09] Speaker 04:
Can I ask, are you arguing that he would have been persecuted for this political reason alone or just that he wouldn't have been persecuted for the automotive reason alone?

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
It's a but for, which are you saying sufficient cause or but for cause of this for the political anti-fark view?

[00:02:29] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I would say it would be but for that he would have been persecuted on this ground alone.

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
So that's a sufficient cause then?

[00:02:40] Speaker 03:
Oh, sorry, sufficient, right.

[00:02:41] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
And what is the best evidence of that?

[00:02:44] Speaker 04:
Because it seems that in most of the interactions, as I understand it, the persecutors

[00:02:49] Speaker 04:
change the topic to the automotive skills?

[00:02:52] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
So the case law essentially says it can be a cause, and it doesn't even have to be the dominant cause.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
So the automotive, I will agree, was likely a more dominant cause.

[00:03:09] Speaker 03:
But this cause alone as a political opinion was sufficient.

[00:03:14] Speaker 03:
For example, calling him a traitor, they wouldn't call him a traitor just

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
if it didn't have to do with not joining their cause.

[00:03:22] Speaker 03:
And they specifically told him frequently, you have to join our cause.

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
And the cause is, let's just remember FARC is not just an organized criminal group like the mafia in the United States.

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
This is actually an armed revolutionary group which sought to overturn the government of Colombia.

[00:03:39] Speaker 03:
They've been fighting for decades and the government has not been able to control this group.

[00:03:43] Speaker 03:
So this is essentially considered in Colombia, you know, a terrorist or a political group.

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
What do you think exactly the error was that the agency made on this issue?

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
On this issue?

[00:03:57] Speaker 03:
Oh, that the fact that they wanted his automotive skills, well, that was a dominant cause, that that somehow overrode the fact that he was also persecuted on account of his political opinion.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
I would just know if we want to distinguish cases that had much less than this.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
In a person of even Casey, this court found that an ethnic slur standing alone was not sufficient.

[00:04:30] Speaker 03:
So just one ethnic slur is not enough to say that's one central reason.

[00:04:36] Speaker 03:
And the court has even boiled the one central reason test down to simply saying a cause.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
Now, a cause is also what the withholding standard is.

[00:04:45] Speaker 03:
But they boil it down to saying a cause

[00:04:48] Speaker 02:
and i think that's significant in that hasn't the court said that the question is whether it is a central reason and as opposed to one that may be a cause but that's incidental or tangential isn't that what the court is articulated as assess so and is that

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
I think, am I right, that that's a factual determination that we review for substantial evidence?

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
Effectively, whether a particular cause is incidental or tangential, as opposed to rising above the level of incidental or tangential?

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
I would agree with that, Your Honor.

[00:05:21] Speaker 02:
Okay, and so why is it the case, even if we would look at this record differently, perhaps, and reach a different conclusion, why is it the case that

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
The record compels a finding that the issue here was not incidental or tangential.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
So I would look at the Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland decision.

[00:05:42] Speaker 03:
And in that case, they said a political opinion is not one central reason when it boils down to mere resistance to being robbed.

[00:05:52] Speaker 03:
But in this case, in other cases, it's purely economic interest.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
In this case,

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
There would be no reason for them to call him a traitor, for them to say that he's not joining their cause.

[00:06:07] Speaker 03:
He said something to the effect of when he was seen at the Democratic Central meeting.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
Don't be stupid and get yourself killed.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
So going to that meeting to help the community, which hurt FARC recruitment, that was enough for the commander of Vladimir to say that would get you killed.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
So that was essentially it.

[00:06:28] Speaker 00:
Back down to the record.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
My understanding is the very first time that Rivera's Leon was threatened was in August, 2021.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
And then to my knowledge in the record in August, 2021, there was no mention of him providing information about cars or working on cars for FARC.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
Is that correct?

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
It was only about his social activities that they perceived to be anti-FARC.

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
Right, yeah, that's correct.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
Okay, so the very first time that anyone targeted Rivera's Leon the only thing that was raised were what his activities were perceived to be anti-fark.

[00:07:11] Speaker 03:
Yeah, that's correct.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, thank you.

[00:07:15] Speaker 04:
Could we turn to the Unable and unwilling prong?

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
Yeah, sure.

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
Do you understand the police to have

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
Required a better report or what do you think happened exactly?

[00:07:29] Speaker 04:
What is your understanding of why you think the police were unable or unwilling?

[00:07:33] Speaker 03:
Right, so I'm looking at page 745 of the record and in his declaration He he he told the police he was kidnapped and blindfolded Then the police asked him will describe your route and they basically looked at him like what are you coming here?

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
Are you are you making this up?

[00:07:51] Speaker 03:
You can't describe their route, but he said he was blindfolded

[00:07:54] Speaker 03:
That's just one example.

[00:07:56] Speaker 03:
He felt that it was useless to stay there with the police.

[00:08:02] Speaker 03:
The police were essentially requiring a kidnapped victim who was blindfolded to come and provide them the evidence before they would take the case seriously.

[00:08:10] Speaker 03:
And I think there's a case law that says if the police show a lack of will, and in this case, I believe certainly the police were showing a lack of will.

[00:08:19] Speaker 03:
This is the functional equivalent of refusing to help.

[00:08:23] Speaker 03:
But even if,

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
even if that's not what the court accepts, the standard is whether it's futile and dangerous.

[00:08:30] Speaker 03:
And I think that shows strongly that it would have been futile, that essentially they reported a crime and the police just gave him a weird look saying, well, bring us evidence of where you were taken when you were blindfolded.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
So I think that shows futility, certainly,

[00:08:45] Speaker 04:
So it seems like you would like us to read the record as if what the police did was just outright refuse to help.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
That the questions they were asking weren't real questions.

[00:08:56] Speaker 04:
It was really just an outright refusal.

[00:08:58] Speaker 04:
And I'm just wondering if we're reviewing this for substantial evidence, whether the agency had to understand the record that way.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
I mean, I understand it is one way to understand the record.

[00:09:07] Speaker 04:
But if we're reviewing with deference, why should we think that

[00:09:12] Speaker 04:
the agency couldn't view this as really they were asking real questions.

[00:09:15] Speaker 04:
And if he had kept trying, maybe they would have helped him.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
Or if he had had more information, they would have helped him.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
I think this is like the Arthia V. Holder case, which is overruled on other grounds.

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
But in that one, the police there required people to track down their victims.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
I mean, sorry.

[00:09:32] Speaker 03:
They required victims to track down their persecutors.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
And I think that's like this case.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
I think the court can find that if the police put the burden on a victim to do the investigation,

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
That's per se refusing.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
But even if it's not refusing, it goes to the futility and dangerous switch.

[00:09:49] Speaker 03:
Even if someone never went to the police, if it was futile, which I think this showed it was futile, then that's a ground, and based on the country conditions.

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
And so if it's dangerous or futile, then there's no obligation to try to report, right?

[00:10:08] Speaker 04:
But you still need some evidence that the police are unable and unwilling, and you think this record

[00:10:13] Speaker 04:
of the country conditions its own would be enough to show that the police are unable and unwilling?

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
Yes, the background documents show that the police collaborate with FARC.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
In our case law about showing unwilling and unable to report where the petitioner does not report to the police at all,

[00:10:39] Speaker 00:
It seems distinguishable from this case where the petitioner did, in fact, go to the police.

[00:10:46] Speaker 00:
And as far as I can tell, the only thing that the agency is faulting the petitioner for is not insisting that the police investigate further.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
Essentially, and to my knowledge, have

[00:11:04] Speaker 00:
Are there any cases, and I'm going to ask opposing counsel this, are there any cases in which we've treated someone who went to the police, reported verbally, but did not essentially demand that the police go further, did we treat that as categorically as not reporting to the police at all?

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
I'm not aware of any cases with that specific fact pattern.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
And it's kind of an unusual one.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
But I'm not aware of any cases on that.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
We have you over your time, so we'll give you two minutes for a vote, but let's hear from the government.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:11:44] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Remy Derych-Alferdu, representing the United States Attorney General.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
The court should deny the petition for review.

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established eligibility for asylum

[00:11:59] Speaker 01:
withholding of removal or tax protection.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
There are two independently dispositive issues in this case regarding petitioners claims for asylum and withholding of removal.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
First, the agency justifiably determined that petitioners failed to establish that the Colombian government is unable or unwilling to protect them from the criminal entity and private individuals that they feared.

[00:12:26] Speaker 01:
The record is replete with evidence of the Colombian government's efforts to combat the activities of FARC and similar groups, including investigating, arresting, and prosecuting their members.

[00:12:38] Speaker 01:
And just yesterday, Your Honors, a panel of these courts... Sorry, can I interrupt?

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
That would be a reason why if we treat him as not reporting at all, the country conditions themselves might not be enough.

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
But what if we understand this record as the police refused to help?

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
And the record simply does not compel that conclusion, Your Honor, that the police simply refused to help.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
They just asked for additional information so that they could investigate the case.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
Wasn't it?

[00:13:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, isn't it the case?

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
They quite literally were unwilling to help.

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
him with an investigation of the abduction unless he provided information that it was impossible for him to provide.

[00:13:18] Speaker 02:
Isn't that quite, at least literally as far as we use language, they were unwilling to do a further investigation because he could not provide something that was impossible for him to provide?

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
The record, Your Honor, does not dictate that it was impossible for him to provide information because he knew who these FARC members were.

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
He knew the names.

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
But they asked him to describe the path, I believe, of his abduction and the location he'd been taken to, these things, and he was blindfolded.

[00:13:49] Speaker 02:
So he explained that was information he just

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
was not in his possession.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
So wouldn't it be that they were unwilling if the police said, we will help you if you provide this information that you can't possibly provide to us?

[00:14:06] Speaker 02:
Why is that not sufficient to show they were unwilling to investigate?

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
It is insufficient, Your Honor, because it is not in every case that the police is able to resolve matters that are brought before them without sufficient information.

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
Petitioner could have described the warehouse.

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
There were so many other things that Petitioner had.

[00:14:26] Speaker 01:
Petitioner had the names of his abductors.

[00:14:30] Speaker 01:
He knew who they were.

[00:14:32] Speaker 01:
They had contacted him several times.

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
And none of that information, according to the record, was provided to

[00:14:38] Speaker 02:
the police in this case and was there evidence was there evidence that the police had informed him that had he they said well is there other information you can provide us that might be sufficient or was it on him to understand that even though they said they needed this particular kind of information he should have tried to provide other information.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, that's the government's position that he should have.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
He should have persisted and he could have provided more information to the police on this particular issue.

[00:15:08] Speaker 01:
And the country reports actually indicate, based on a decision that was issued just yesterday by a panel of this court,

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
It said that the country conditions evidence showed that the government generally sought to investigate, prosecute, and punish dissident groups, including the FARC.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
And on that basis, the court ruled that

[00:15:29] Speaker 01:
Petitioner in that case had not proven the unable and unwilling bond of the asylum standard.

[00:15:35] Speaker 00:
Going back to how the IJ decided this case, what I find troubling is that the IJ, even though the record shows that the petitioner reported what happened to him to the police, the IJ essentially cites Castro Perez

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
a case in which the petitioner did not report to the police at all.

[00:15:58] Speaker 00:
And our line of cases about country conditions reports not being sufficient standing alone, to my knowledge, all involve cases in which the petitioner did not report to the police at all.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
So why are you aware of any case in which

[00:16:17] Speaker 00:
In that line of cases where we say country conditions alone are not sufficient, where the petitioner doesn't report at all and doesn't show futility of reporting, right?

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
Where the petitioner in fact went to the police.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, I'm not aware of any specific case regarding that particular line of reasoning, but the court has generally issued

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
The decisions of the court, especially one that was issued this year in June, 2025 stated that petitioners, whether a victim has reported or attempted to report violence or abuse to the authorities is a factor.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
that may be considered alongside other relevant record evidence that bears on the question of whether the government is unable or unwilling to control a private persecutor.

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
So it is just one of the factors that needs to be looked at in this case.

[00:17:14] Speaker 01:
And in this case, the whole area, the mosaic of information in this case, it's not clear that the police had

[00:17:21] Speaker 01:
All the information that he needed to be able to pursue this case on behalf of petitioner, but the country conditions report, which are very, very, which.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
are important in determining these kinds of cases.

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
The long line of cases, another one issued earlier this year in 2025, looking at the 2020 Department of State Human Rights reports for Columbia, say that it reflected that the government of Columbia has taken action against the FARC and government officials who support the FARC and that the report is similar to the 2021 report in this case.

[00:17:57] Speaker 01:
And also in Rojas Galindo, which is a case from 2021, it says that the country reports reflect that FARC-related violence has decreased over 90% since 2016 when FARC reached a peace agreement with the Colombian government.

[00:18:13] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's not to say that FARC is still not perpetrating crime in Colombia, but the government, that one instance where a petitioner went to the police does not indicate an unwillingness on the part of the government of Colombia to protect.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
Aside from the unable and unwilling issue, which is this positive of petitions claims for asylum and withholding of removal.

[00:18:37] Speaker 01:
There is also the issue of relocation in Columbia, which petitioner was not able to prove in this case.

[00:18:43] Speaker 01:
And the timeline of petitioners' encounters with FARC is especially significant.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
For relocation, the burden was placed on petitioner, though.

[00:18:51] Speaker 04:
So if there were errors on these other issues, then the burden would go the other way.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
Wouldn't that mean we'd need to remand on relocation?

[00:18:59] Speaker 01:
Well, if you lost on the other issues.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
Well, with Nexus, there's still the Nexus issue to be considered on the asylum case.

[00:19:07] Speaker 01:
The immigration judge did not address Nexus with respect to withholding of removal

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
So in terms of the issue of asylum petitioner would still the burden would not necessarily shift because if he cannot prove nexus he definitely the burden would not shift.

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
But if there was an error if there was an error on nexus on withholding and we don't agree with you on unwillingness and unable then we can't affirm withholding based on relocation because the burden was the wrong way.

[00:19:37] Speaker 04:
Is that right.

[00:19:38] Speaker 01:
Generally, yes, Your Honor, but the regulations from 2022, which is what is, from 2020, which is what is prevailing in this case, says that, yeah, in cases where the applicant has not established past persecution, the applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that it would not be reasonable for him to relocate unless the persecution is by government.

[00:20:06] Speaker 04:
So if we think there were,

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
was an error on the past persecution analysis, we would have to remand relocation also.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
Well, there are other aspects of past persecution which, of course, were not addressed in this case.

[00:20:20] Speaker 01:
for instance, whether the level of harm that petitioner received rose to the level of persecution.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
And so there are so many other factors that need to be considered.

[00:20:29] Speaker 04:
That might mean that he could win on remand, but I'm still asking, we would need to remand if we thought there was an error on past persecution on withholding, right?

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
Or is there some way that...

[00:20:41] Speaker 01:
On withholding of removal, Your Honor, because if the court finds that the government of Columbia was unable on willing, then on the issue of withholding, it may have to be remanded, Your Honor.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
But that is not the only dispositive issue in this case.

[00:21:01] Speaker 01:
Regarding the issue of relocation, I would like briefly to

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
have a court look at the timeline of events to show that Petra could indeed relocate.

[00:21:15] Speaker 04:
Sorry, I just am still confused about what you're arguing about this.

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
So are you trying to argue for relocation that it doesn't matter whose burden it is because he clearly can relocate or something?

[00:21:25] Speaker 04:
Because it seems like you're acknowledging we may not need to reach, that relocation really isn't going to help us if the other issues would be an error.

[00:21:33] Speaker 01:
Only with respect to withholding of removal, Your Honor.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
because there's still the nexus issue which covers the asylum claim.

[00:21:40] Speaker 01:
If petitioner, if the court finds that petitioner was not able to establish nexus, then the asylum claim stands, the judge's decision on asylum.

[00:21:50] Speaker 00:
But if we agreed with the government on nexus, we still wouldn't reach the relocation issue.

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
So it seems to me that we should focus on the question of whether of nexus, correct?

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
Yeah, on the issue of nexus.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
Yes, you are.

[00:22:02] Speaker 01:
And if you look at the timing, all the events of this case.

[00:22:07] Speaker 01:
Again, it supports the agency's denial of nexus in this case.

[00:22:14] Speaker 01:
Petitionaro wants support.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry to interrupt you.

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
Let me ask you just a question.

[00:22:19] Speaker 02:
If I'm looking at the IJ's decision and the IJ says, while Vladimir commented to respondent Libardo about how his social work interfered with recruiting people joined FARC,

[00:22:31] Speaker 02:
There is insufficient evidence to show that FARC would not have harmed respondent Libardo but for his imputed or actual anti-FARC political opinion.

[00:22:41] Speaker 02:
I mean, isn't that the IJ applying a but for requirement to evaluate whether this was a central reason and haven't

[00:22:52] Speaker 02:
Hasn't this court held in Manzano that that's incorrect?

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
And if so, isn't that a legal error that would justify reversal so that the facts could be reevaluated under the appropriate standard?

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor, because what the IG did here ultimately was to rule that there was no nexus in this case.

[00:23:13] Speaker 01:
And there is a reason for that.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
If you look at the record, beginning with when Petitioner lived in El Hunca,

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
before 2026 and when he was hired by GM, he participated in a corporate social responsibility activities from 2009 to 2015.

[00:23:30] Speaker 01:
It wasn't until October 2015 at the very end, just before he left, that FARC delivered the message, but they didn't harm him.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
There was nothing at all.

[00:23:39] Speaker 01:
They just

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
So I guess my question to you is this at this point where the IJ seems to base their decision on the failure to show but for causation and Understandably in an issue a decision was issued before the Manzano decision from this court which says that

[00:24:01] Speaker 02:
But for causation is not an absolute requirement.

[00:24:03] Speaker 02:
So is that a legal error by the IJ with respect to the standard that was being applied?

[00:24:11] Speaker 01:
Well, the IJ may have misspoken on that particular issue, but still the ultimate conclusion of the immigration judge was that

[00:24:19] Speaker 01:
the petitioner did not establish nexus in this case.

[00:24:23] Speaker 01:
And the reason for that is because of the factual pattern here in this case, where the first time Fark told him to stop interfering, and he went back to, he was laid off by GM, he went back, nothing happened to him in Alhounka.

[00:24:37] Speaker 01:
And then when he returned to Bogota, which he described as a scene of war, he was there for two years, engaged in this corporate social responsibility activities.

[00:24:45] Speaker 01:
Fark called him to stop.

[00:24:48] Speaker 01:
in December 2020 and did nothing.

[00:24:50] Speaker 01:
And then two years later, when they figured out that they needed him for something in August of 2021, that was when they now said accosted him and asked him to help with the automotive parts.

[00:25:06] Speaker 01:
And again, looking at the timeline of activities, they never ever told Petitioner or mentioned again that he should stop his corporate social responsibilities.

[00:25:18] Speaker 01:
That went by over a year, two years before.

[00:25:22] Speaker 01:
And so again, each time Petitioner pivoted to his political beliefs, his assailants went back and argued

[00:25:34] Speaker 01:
and told him that they needed him specifically for his skills.

[00:25:40] Speaker 01:
It was Petitioner alone who kept talking about his skills, his political opinion.

[00:25:47] Speaker 01:
His assailants never brought it up as a reason for wanting him.

[00:25:52] Speaker 01:
Each time in the record, and there were over five instances between November

[00:25:57] Speaker 01:
2021 and February 2022.

[00:26:00] Speaker 01:
And so Petitioner has not shown that there is a nexus between his assailant's conduct and any political opinion or imputed political opinion that he may have had, Your Honors.

[00:26:15] Speaker 04:
We have you over your time.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
Yeah, thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:26:18] Speaker 04:
Let's put two minutes on the clock for rebuttal, please.

[00:26:21] Speaker 03:
Very briefly, thank you, Your Honors, for giving me some more time.

[00:26:23] Speaker 03:
Just to that last issue of nexus, in the case that we've cited,

[00:26:27] Speaker 03:
Barkhizalyan, the holder.

[00:26:29] Speaker 03:
I probably didn't pronounce it right.

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
592, F3rd, 1018.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
In that case, the reason why I believe this court should find the record compels that once and for a reason was political opinion is that court found that a comment made to him by law enforcement official defaming and raising his head, quotation, that was sufficient discrete concrete evidence in that case to show

[00:26:55] Speaker 03:
So I would just say it can be a few things.

[00:26:59] Speaker 03:
It can be even be statements like that that can rise to the level of one central reason.

[00:27:06] Speaker 03:
And the cases that didn't find it, like as discussed, they would just say one ethnic slur by itself doesn't rise to that level.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
And a quick point about internal relocation.

[00:27:16] Speaker 03:
I believe that that issue alone would definitely not be dispositive, even if that issue were found against the petitioner.

[00:27:25] Speaker 03:
If past persecution were found and, sorry, if nexus were found and unable and unwilling were found, then humanitarian asylum would have to be considered and that would have to be remanded on that issue.

[00:27:39] Speaker 03:
So internal relocation itself could not be dispositive.

[00:27:43] Speaker 03:
And in terms of internal relocation, they told him, no matter where you are, we will find you and kill you.

[00:27:51] Speaker 03:
He could not safely relocate.

[00:27:53] Speaker 03:
When he went to his mother-in-law's house,

[00:27:55] Speaker 03:
They put the graffiti threatening him.

[00:27:58] Speaker 03:
And he was only there a short period of time, constantly moving.

[00:28:01] Speaker 03:
So I would submit that it was not safe to relocate.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:28:09] Speaker 03:
And I'll submit if there's no other questions.

[00:28:11] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:11] Speaker 04:
Thank you both sides for the arguments.

[00:28:13] Speaker 04:
This case is submitted.