regardless of whether or not there needed to be cooperation into it we have to find that the facts are clearly erroneous and in the be a pair fully explain why every single factual determination will against your client and it wasn't clear that it was the police that were involved in this to begin with but it's not clear that  lie but it's reasonable to conclude that it's not the police when it your client says it's the police but is two witnesses don't say it's the police and so therefore it's it could a go either way and so we can't look behind that determination regarding as to whether anything else would have also been helpful to your client just what's been there doesn't tell doesn't provide for relief for your client only speak on to one whether these men appear to be the police or not and they don't actually say anything either way they just aren't silent on that but what the immigration judge wanted to know was whether these men were  because mario isn't just relying on what your client told him he is somebody who actually saw the people and so this has to do with the question of what happens in the future if mr d s goes back hall and he erroneous concept which is you could construe it the way i said earlier you could destroy it the way you just said but there's nothing that requires either construction of this and the same with the y who would have been told by  also believes that it's appropriate to deny really based upon the entirety of the record that the applicant has not established that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured on  return the court the b s a determines there was no clear error about the future mistreatment claim because this arguments that the expert game was too speculative so why isn't that a legitimate conclusion that we have to defer to even if we could have found that the cia could have that the in i j in the b i could have said that the that the expert was this point also directly stems come to immigration judges well actually it says based upon the entirety of the record it doesn't say because there was no corroborating evidence  immigration judge says now is your time to bring forth all your corroborating or to explain why you can't corroborate that's just a duty on the on the  so it is a duty on the petitioner to explain why he cannot supply corroborating evidence and he did so the challenge to in his brief before the b i a after the integration judge issued this opinion expressly identifying the crop rating evidence responsibility i think that it's kind of a chicken and egg thing isn't it your client's duty to say and we have corroborating evidence that supports my testimony or else we don't because there's no way to get it but your honor really please believe me it seems like that's your client's obligation to do in the st instance not to have the judge explain why it's not good enough for your aunt here the immigration judge appeal but he simply could not do so when he didn't know what the immigration status exact for operation demand was and that his explanations and the records for how the police be tracked down for how white he thought these people were placed and how they could find them and how they knew crime ration so when he had the chance to go back it's not like that's a surprise to him he knows that going in and yet chose not to offer any more evidence for himself or his you know  you did summit the contradictions report an expert report to corroborate what you couldn't and he didn't seem any further testimony because he already had laid out this whole story to the immigration judge you found a credible in affidavit but they were so cracking down on how they found him and that is the day emory is later so mario letter isn't it but if you look at the record we can tell from the to find the whole argument of your opposing counsel some but we're going to just listen with audio unless there's some objection from someone which had not your immunity and miss trice if you could start the clock back because he's  place if it is determined that you would face torture in your home country correct that's correct your honor yes and then my last question relating to this procedural posture is i don't see any discussion about relocation within the country most of these opinions contain some sort of discussion in the bag to be a bit it would be in an inappropriate if the person hasn't shown that they could relocate relocation still applies in this context but i soon that perhaps the b i didn't discuss that because that gets smack dab into the issue of the national guard and why they're all over the country they could hunt him it what is your understanding of that well there are several alternatives holdings but the immigration judge did consider relocation as a factor i did not consider that with a b i a agreed with the immigration judge and this court refused both the board's decision and the immigration judge's decision to the extent the board adopts the immigration judge's decision and relocation is certainly a factor in determining whether torture is more likely than not and in that regard the identification card there are two findings by the immigration judge one is that just merely having the identification card by itself does not mean that the petitioner likely than not be tortured and the evidence doesn't compel that conclusion to eat when considering the petitioner's expert report because experts report as the immigration judge stated it provides no explanation as to why nearly possessing the identification card would result in more likely than not torture on the other finding on the id card is even assuming that the police have his identification card there's no compelling evidence that the police are looking for him now  the letters he submitted from his wife and friend mario do not identify the bad actors as police and there's no compelling evidence that the police are looking for the petitioner and in that regard it should be emphasized here that the petition police will harm it so acquiescence is waived and off the table nevertheless the evidence wouldn't compel the conclusion that the police would acquiesce when there is counterbalancing evidence  harm is that he was targeted cause of having witnessed this incident and he claims that eleven days later three persons dressed in police uniforms came to his home beat him evidence that petitioner himself submitted the newspaper article for example indicates that the shooters were not in fact the police officers that they were it was a gang quarrel and furthermore the letters submitted the petitioners wife and friend described the bad actors as either suspects or firman or suspicious types and never referred to them as the police so the immigration judge recently required further corroboration in this case and the petitioner raised the argument on appeal that he should not be required to ask is assailants for crop aeration and that's true and the board expressly considered that argument board and the immigration judge are under no obligation to specify which corroborating evidence is necessary in order for the applicant to satisfy the burden of proof a nd point here is that as support stated the submitted three letters in support but the board and the immigration judge both found them insufficient for very particular reasons that is it did not identify the suspects or the bad actors as police officers and if it had in fact the letter from mario the undated letter says that suspicious types have been looking for him i believe or i think that they are the ones that tried to kill you now if those suspicious types if we take that language out and make them police officers well that would to find him a week and a half later well if you look to the wife's letter the wife's letter says petitioner witnessed the shooting and the suspects put a bounty on his life well that explains if we change suspects for police that would explain how they found him there's a bounty on his life there was an organized effort by the police to find him so that would corroborate that aspect of the claim and thirdly whether the assailants you know how the assailants knew that he had witnessed the shooting well again the wife's letter says exactly that your honor she could have corroborated that aspect of the claim so you know having submitted declarations by his friend and wife before necessarily the evidence was reasonably available he could have either put his wife on the stand and asked what she had been told in the past about these incidents or he could've asked you know further declarations from his wife and friend for clarification what they meant by suspects or suspicious type be denied just on that basis alternatively even if this court were not to consider the corroboration issue the evidence does not compel the conclusion that petitioner will more likely than not be tortured in el salvador by the time of the immigration judge decision it had been four years since the incidents and there is no compelling evidence that anybody is currently looking to torture him again his his friend the dated letter from his friend has absolutely no mention of anybody looking for the petitioner at this time and not even the mention of the police and he described the bad actors as vermin and distinguishes them from the police saying things like they act as if they are the police so clearly if anybody is looking for them it is not the police and the support the petitioner's theory of the case that the police are after him to torture him and in addition to that as  discussed the relocation issue that is a factor and that factor also does not compel a finding in the petitioners favor and also constitutes substantial evidence that petitioner will not more likely than not suffer is really two part one is whether the idea itself is sufficient evidence to prove that he would more likely than not be tortured and two is that even if the police had his id and could find him the police aren't actually looking for him so there's again no likelihood of future harm in that regard so this position for review could be denied on those two alternative bases your honor one is that you fail to submit sufficient corroborating evidence and two is that he felt submit compelling evidence of future torture but even setting aside those two grounds your honor this position for view could be denied for a rd reason and that is that the petitioner has failed to submit compelling evidence of sufficient state action in this case one is that he has not shown compelling evidence that his torturers or the people he fears will torture him are the or actually the police so in that regard he has not shown government torture alternatively as mentioned before petitioner waves theory that he that the persons he fears were private persons to which the government would acquiesce to torture and so if this court we're not to consider is affirmative waiver on the acquiescence issue of the evidence would it compel the conclusion in his favor again while there is evidence of police abuse military busa and criminal organizations  colluding with the government in the record there is also record evidence that the salvadoran government state is undertaking significant efforts to reform its police in fact the st few pages of the two thousand and seventeen us department of state country ports just describes those efforts you know going after persons who have abused their authority and even the petitioners own expert report states that  or acknowledges these efforts and says that effectiveness have been to varying degrees now that is not a glowing assessment of el salvador's current situation however it does not compel the conclusion that the government would acquiesce to any private acts of torture at least that is not so on this record year or so in some of the evidence does not compel the conclusion that petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof the evidence doesn't compel the conclusion that he's shown a likelihood of future torture and the evidence alternatively does not compel the conclusion that he submitted a sufficient evidence of state action and for those reasons this petition for review should be denied decision she made some mention that he could relocate but in doing so she noted that it provided this expert report but then said but it included without providing any explanation that the since the p l c officers  do people not know who the police are in this small town i mean i know who some police officers are in a big town that i live in so is that not a possibility to know who he will are there are police officers in your town so this was actually think has been brought out but i'm just curious about is this kind of information available on it on the internet you know the employees of this of the country or the employees of the local police or whatever i'm not entirely sure on here but i don't did testify that it's not just that these men were wearing police uniforms he saw the names of two of them on their badges when they came to as i am they identified themselves as police officer it's and we agree that this is similar to the