obviously you know when we're talking about somebody receiving treatment for mental illness and in a hospital setting and we're talking about whether or not that's torture is a very delicate inquiry and so we have to be very very careful and village in our line drawing  e mexican government was making steps to improve those conditions and that the record in that case didn't compel the conclusion that the staff in those mental institutions intended to torture the patients in those hospitals and  the abuse that the petition i'm a sucker would not constitute torture because those conditions could be attributed to negligence or to a misunderstanding of the nature of mental illness and to poverty in the country and t does not make an adverse credibility but it has to take it to consider your client's mental illness but there's also testimony in the record that your client is not very good nk the family can help him you know i don't think he's going to necessarily end up in voluntarily committed and so you have this kind of weaving through all of these things and so i'm wondering when you yes we review the end of the substantial evidence of you and i need to show or we need to show that the record compels a conclusion that the agency was incorrect and i think we can do that in an immigration judge as fact findings break down in the st link of shame that she alleges that the petitioner's family is going to be able to take care of him and i mean the records of you know how long the record is and i can point out all of the sites in the records of the incredibly long voices and having these auditory hallucinations and not oriented to time and place and and then we have evidence on the record letters in the record from the family members you know from his mother saying that she's old and she can't really support  well i would i would absolutely concede that bar makes my argument more difficult with regard to the evidence that was considered i will point out barbara my end of the st and the particulars of his crime determination is to look at the elements of the offense difficult so i just do want to go back to the question of torture and and i think it's important for us here to look at two different things one of them is the kind of abuse that my client alleges and of the country condition demonstrate occur in these mental institutions and which could potentially be and the government alleges this kind of implies this could be seen as treatment and that is for a longer strained and potentially being put in t pages six hundred and thirty seven thousand six hundred and thirty that there is no therapeutic justification for the use of solitary confinement and for a longer strain to persons with disabilities in psychiatric institutions both prolonged seclusion and restraint may constitute torture or over any restraint on people with mental disabilities for even a short period of time may constitute torture and ill treatment so that's one set of abuses the other set of abuses and i c m i'm about to be out of time but i just want to mention this is that aside from demonstrating that people are subject to involuntary restraint and and seclusion ourselves our confinement are also beaten and they're burned with cigarettes and they're insulted and and they're through negligence or poverty in that country i don't think this court was trying to say but it's ok in a mental institution if you know somebody a patient or burns a mistake or is that still doesn't hear a specific regarding the evidence the harm that he suffered as well as whether or not there's a specific intent to torture individuals with mental health issues in the us and the and and that's the the crux of this mistreatment because of their issue of the status conversed lee in the cases that have no specific intent and there's been massive amounts of evidence of poor conditions lack of knowledge of how to treat individuals  of resources and that's just insufficient if you look at the biggest case of well it says well v a does is correct that a variety of evidence show that mexican mental patients are housed in terrible matter r a f and says it is not enough to show that this is substandard conditions in mental health facilities pretrial detention and prisons in mexico are the result of negligence lack of resources or as it is in training and education the authorities that you're citing and i'm not sure how we reconcile it with some of our other cases so for example we grant relief in cases where where women have claimed to be that they would be subjected to female genital mutilation not because somebody intended to torture because there's a cultural norm where they come from so so how do you reconcile those cases where i don't think there was a specific intent to torture when the argument you're making to me yeah i think that those cases in the other other when a piece of that would immediately come to mind would be some of the chinese enough planning cases where the carrier motive may not be in a specific intent to torture those individuals but if you look at the more recent require that there be evidence of a specific intent to commit that act on that person that has to be part of the analysis and here there's no have to show a specific intent to commit an act that constitutes torture on  individual and that's just not there you look at the evidence in the record of the country conditions there's lots of evidence and most of that demonstrating that there's a lack of cultural understanding with regard to mental health issues case that has a very mandan a different issue but that also recognize that there has to be an individual as assessment that this particular person would be specifically targeted and that the target would be something that would constitute torture not just if it were torture if someone put someone into solitary confinement let me give two possible punishment for their having done something like would happen in a prison for example all the time the united states you need more than that to satisfy the specific  torture probably i think that that would that will take me years to the hypothetical chain of events argument and happy to discuss but i think that you would need more than just a simple fact that an action could constitute torture and that action happens as punishment there are numerous so it so is that it isn't i mean the usual reason for torture state sponsored torture is either punishment under criminal laws of our country isn't torture number so it was actually you know solitary defining confinement as a punishment for crime that was committed that would be that of honor that it was solitary confinement because they didn't because for example have had that that it really that individual did not know how to react or just someone with a missile hole problem and that person was acting out which may be more lies  the fact in this case that's where we come into all of the case law that talks about that that action is bad but what you have to show is a factual matter that the action must be specifically intended for the purpose of torturing even considering the truth of his speculative believes that what he believes happened he believes happens that evidence just does not support that that it's possible that he had traumatic brain injury to the m r i was inconclusive it's not clear whether that came from a door hitting him in the head or another source it's not clear what kind of beatings he may his sustained at the hands of police and all of that combines the immigration judge went through each single allegation of potential harm and said even if some of this happened it doesn't rise under the case law to qualify as torture and it's a dead and several he says and in analyzing that this type of minor beatings just  does look at the hypothetical chain and the hypothetical changes that you would not have access to medication and that he would act out without his medication that he would end up in the hands of police or the psychiatric staff and that he would then be tortured and each single step would have to be that he would go without treatment and would be singled out for torture not only was he not singled out for torture in the past but the evidence demonstrates that the government is really working hard to try to provide more resources resources in the mental health so there's just insufficient the only case or controversy that would be left to be an attack on the border itself which he has conceded he's or movable as an aggravated stalin and that any collateral consequences that were mean could be but there are no lot of stigma and discrimination against them in mozambique and so that would go to the issue of the intent and i was really happy that you brought up the f e m a issue and thank you for doing that it was actually further down in my notes and i never got to making that comparison but i actually think it's an apt comparison because i think it's important for us to take a step back and talk and think about what we're actually talking about we're talking about a person who was in a mental hospital and under the control of the staff there not only in the throes of psychos being restrained and being put in solitary confinement or also talking about that person being beaten we're talking about that person being burned with cigarettes we're talking about that person being whipped with ropes and  cables and so we can't just look then and say well maybe they didn't under maybe people don't know better or maybe this is a matter of culture when we can and are and respond