the court can decide this petition for a view and any combination of the following three ways st it can hold that the agency ignored potentially dispositive evidence namely mr bennett he dates is narrow psychological evaluation and for the agency to meaningfully engage with that evidence nd the court can hold that the agency failed to consider mr bennett aggregate risk of torture from all the tensional sources and reman for the agency to undertake that analysis or rd the court can hold that the agency erred in finding that mr bennett he this is unlikely to be institutionalized in mexico and committed further error in concluding that if institutionalized he would not suffer mistreatment satisfying the regulatory definition of course unless the court prefers otherwise i'd like to start by discussing the st of the three potential avenues because we think that it's the most straightforward and ultimately judicially minimalist way of resolving the petition for at least from my perspective you forced all my colleagues to read your brief and agree the government i understand reclaims about having in withholding but we don't think that what happened to him in the rehabilitation center constitutes past torture what we do think is that he's more likely than not to suffer future torture in a mental health institution is fully disabled and needs ongoing care and support we also know that he has no private network of support awaiting him in mexico indeed he has no no relatives there last time he was in mexico he experienced about this homeless ismy homelessness he checked into the rehabilitation center after he fell into a gully and injured his arm while intoxicated is the behavioral manifestations of his mental disorders also led him to run from a cab because he believed he was being followed by unknown people and also led him to deliver him self to the police the police additionally detained him in a separate incident the reason they gave was but the record does make clear that the police in mexico engage in torture wi it is more likely than not that your client would be forced to go to a probably mental institution and that he would be tortured under the terms of how torture is people with mental disorders in mexico who don't have some ill years familial support have no alternative but institutionalization that evidence also indicates that having a mental disorder isn't even a necessary condition for institutionalization because the police frequently bring people who are merely chronically homeless or otherwise indigenous to mental institutions and the evident also shows that those people who are brought there who don't have it who don't even have a mental disorder just simply because of their advanced age nobody to come get them or or inquire about their whereabouts generally spend the rest of their natural lives in these institutions ok let's say that's true where are they produce i mean there are well below there are people of goodwill who think indicate that an array of mistreatment that constitutes torture occurs and means public institutions in mexico talking about things that are uncontroversially torture like beatings and sexual assaults and then things that  and in addition to being sexual assault which is the you know st and foremost risk of torture that he faces in a mental institution we're also talking about things like unconsented psycho surgeries physical and chemical restraint  case back to the agency because the agency had made factual findings that were incompatible with the country conditions reports i would also point the court to gary versus far which we cited in our opening brief as well i believe and there is the i pointing to more or less the same evidence that we seem to put in the administrative records here found that the petitioner a person from mexico with mental disorders was more likely than not to face that sickly intended torture and then to health institution and then this court found that the b i a had erred in overturning the factual finding and then i also want to step back and emphasize that we can still prevail on the petition for the you even if the court doesn't think that the record compels the conclusion that mr going to be this is more likely than not to suffer torture in a mental institution because the the question the question the bottom line question is whether if returned to mexico he's more likely than not to suffer torture from any source and so you also says the court also has to factor in his ris had an increased likelihood of having those interactions with the police and what we know about his past underscores that as well he's delivered himself to the police once he ran from a taxi another time because he believed he was being followed by unknown individuals and the country conditions reports the disability rights international reports vary out the police regularly round up people like mr bennett and detain them and or bring them to institutions unless the court has any other questions i'd like to re forward and discuss the specific intent even if the institutionalized in mexico where he will be subject to the gamut of her isak conditions and and forms of mistreatment of the disability rights international reports on the state department report describes occurring there and that brings me to my nd point which is the court doesn't need to weigh in on the question of whether substantial evidence establish ards give me supports the idea conclusion because the i j a did not give any indication that she read or considered mr kennedy as narrow psychological evaluation and it's true that institutionalization and it also bears on his future likelihood of interactions with the police which in mexico bring with a an unacceptably high risk of torture and that the foremost reason that makes it apparent that the i j a didn't consider the neuro psychological evaluation is that she appeared to give dispositive way to mr bennett is testimony that he doesn't subjectively want to be tortured and that he wouldn't like to fall into the hands of anyone else and that he's not going to act in a way that calls attention to other people