is only asking for protection under the convention against torture under the deferral of remove all section he's not asking for protection either the withholding of removal section so there are no mandatory bars to deferral of removal and therefore his criminal convictions are not relevant to the discussion of whether or not he qualifies for the difference of removed and therefore we don't need to consider that he was found credible by the lower court he's established that he was tortured in the past he was repeatedly sexually physically and emotionally abused from the age of four or five to the age of fourteen when he came to the united states this is a very sensitive time for the development of a child he was abused by his father and his fellow students he was violently raped beaten stabbed left for dead and permanently disabled when he was eight or nine years old the teenage boys who severely wounded him thought he was dead they left him disabled with permanent nerve damage and muscular atrophy in his left leg he was violently raped again when he was twelve years old by someone he thought was a friend in mohammad the gonzales four hundred f thirty seven eight five at eight zero to the ninth circuit in two thousand and five found evidence of past torture that causes permanent and continuing harm alone may be enough to establish automatic in title meant to convention against torture relief although nexus is not required for cat protection the tortures that tortures referred to petitioners homosexuality when they harmed him demonstrating that the reason for the torture was based on discrimination which is one of the requirements in the definition of torture one we have the passport passed torture well that was when he was a young child in a very rural area exactly well he is homosexual he is disabled and he is now been convicted of a drug offense which would make him an easier target for the police increase scrutiny and mexico i'm sorry i can't i don't follow that last argument in a light and dread conviction would subject him to increase well there is a problem with  drug trafficking in mexico and it causes a great deal of violence and he could easily be subjected to a police arrest it's my understanding the u s government will notify the mexican government about his convictions if he were removed from the united states and therefore he would be at risk because the authorities would know about that that's just one factor as i said he has an aggregate of risks all right when those three subjects for cat really if you have to prove that it's more likely than not that he would be septic to torture he would more likely than not a fifty one percent yes and we propose that he's shown and met his burden with  different prior to this he had a legal residency entered you know a green card he could pass across this border without any fear because he could reenter again he lost that green card due to his criminal convictions and therefore his only remedy double occasions well because he's the fear is diminished by the fact that he knows he has the legal authority to cross back into the united states he's not going deep into mexico obviously but at that time he had no fear that he would have to remain in mexico trying to establish a life there a job a way to support himself have contacts with all different types of people just visiting an act does not make it long time ago i'm saying currently that he he would more likely than not due to the his particular circumstances as they stated before his circumstances are different than than someone who is home homosexual but has no disability has no criminal record that will follow him around so his particular circumstances are different cite to the human rights conditions report that included persons with disability but are they tortured or they'd more discriminated against well they were denied services  because of that persecution in mexico's that quotes many of our state department records and other government reports yes or there's copious reports you know as i was pointing out  persecution his particular instance is he's already been tortured he carries that with him for a lifetime and it would be torture for him to be forced to return there it's a mental psychological torture i think there's a very much a physical threat to him and risk if he's there but he's also being forced to relive those circumstances that he went through the full time of his childhood in mexico there aren't many children that have to endure that homosexuals are a little different than other asylum seekers in that even their own parents don't love them if you're a muslim or jewish child and you're being discriminated against for those reasons your parents don't abuse you or threaten you or hurt you to try to make you stop being jewish or muslim least you have the during your childhood your parents support and love hopefully in these instances and in instances of these cases these children because of their homosexuality were not accepted by their parents and in many times are emotionally physically and sexually abused as this client was so that a support system an individual never has they missed that in their childhood now you're asking him to go back there and try to create a life for himself when he's every day looking at the damage that he suffered psychologically damaged he suffered to his body and the challenges of trying to fit into that society with the risk factors that he has and yes there is a threat that he would be tortured that he would be very vulnerable due to his physical disability he certainly cannot physically defend himself there are constant threats and physical attacks on homosexuals in mexico and he bears that risk and those time this case was brought so with those combination of factors i believe he does meet his burden of fifty one percent that he could be tortured if sent back to mexico i also believe that the government acquiesced in his in his torture they failed to provide any police or medical services in his small rural county area the court my name is don conrad and i am here today having half of the attorney general in this case of sanction evidence supports the agency's denial of captive although petitioner suffered severe harm abuse as a child in his small town in mexico the record does not compel the finding that he would more likely than not be subject to future torture in mexico as judge tillman noted he returned to do you want to several times as an adult without harm he also lived with his aunt for a few months before coming to the united states and was not harmed by this case is distinguishable from the court's recent decision and bring us rodriguez because brings us to not address can't really and kept a for all requires a higher standard to establish harm rising to the level of torture government involvement in torture and a likelihood of future torture so i think there are several errors in the b i l s opinion and i'm not sure they're all such treatment i think that is a clear holding of bring as that would apply to this case while we would argue it would be that they did not share the of government involvement required for a cat is greater than that required for asylum or withholding and that you have to show there is some awareness that doesn't necessarily have to be because it was reported but there has to be either it like corruption and like these conditions are generally going on and they know it's happening or you know write something country report supplied a lot of that evidence and we had a ok well i mean and that certainly supports a finding that the government of mexico was unable or unwilling to protect the petitioners in that case in this case and that case our position would still be that there's that there's a little more required you have to have some sort of knowledge that this was going to an awareness not necessarily that they were reported but some awareness and they used and happened in a very small rural town where there  there was no no obviously no no authority figure actually knew that this was happening not his parents not school officials parents participated in his father beat him that's true  but then the act the acts of sexual violence and and abuse that he experienced was at the hands of other individuals in this town i will also note that even if this court were to consider  there were there was past acquiescence because before two thousand and four the government was unable and unwilling the situation has changed and now we're looking for it in this case and the forward look  show that there would be government acquiescence to this my step because he has the government the evidence in this case showed that conditions had improved at least for homosexuals in because in fact they haven't been legislation is actually aspirational i mean it is legislation but the change in the conditions the actual conditions on the ground haven't changed that's that's correct your honor but i think that in this case we do substance offense and the court properly the i j a properly applied the modified categorical perched to determine that the underlying conviction involved methamphetamine and found him removable at that on that basis and now that that very controlled substance requirement and its actus reus requirement well i will look at that but i don't think you statutorily ineligible for humanitarian relief do you agree conceded and then he didn't he didn't challenge that finding before the  also the board's interpretation of country conditions evidence and the board did find in this case that the country conditions while showing discrimination and that discrimination still continues that the country conditions did not show that he would more likely than not be tortured in the future and i would continue to note that he  again returned to are there any further questions as to the issue of acquiescence as i stated a reasonable person would conclude that the government was aware that there is law and lawlessness in remote areas every society knows that humanity has a capacity to be cruel and therefore it's the the purpose of government to provide institutions like schools medical services police services to assist their population they are also supposed to educate their populace human rights issues and they totally fail to do that here and how come we don't have a challenge to the aggravated felony this decision here i believe that he had a sentence greater than one year which is a bar to asylum if you have a conviction with a sentence of one year or more that's considered an aggravated felony and in a bar to statutory and regulatory in regarding to that particular virus is a mandatory bar there was also an issue well it would not have been it is granted an issue obviously that he applied late because he had a green card so i don't i could have argued that issue if that had been the reason for the denial of an asylum but due to his criminal record he would be would be barred because of it it's defined as an aggravated felony any time there's a conviction of one year or more harry i am sorry you have a few seconds i just wanted to point to the due diligence issue for governments to provide protection regarding the acquiescence it's in the brief page forty one thank you thank you so