objective proof that you were tortured in jamaica because the government possessed but never disclose that objective proof because peter b requested that objective proof and because t might be his fears of more but how does that get you to the demanding more likely than not standard and i questions listen said the probability let's focus on how does that how does that affect that the government is in fact a you know responsible for the things that he fears what evidence is there this is a letter from the da to homeland security investigations which is part of ice in support visa application the da is not simply documenting that he is fearful of torture it's documenting that jamaica is a place where he would face torture  by or on behalf of or with the acquiescence of the jamaican government what shows that again the fact that they're describing jamaica as the place where he faces retribution agreeing to this part of that acquiescence inquiry address is whether the government is capable of stopping at and again person as he is application one of the requirements for  for application is that the applicant has then or will be placed in danger now if he just was facing threats of torture but the government was capable of stopping it or billing to stop it he wouldn't be in means more than the government is trying but failing to stop it it means it's agreeing to it or allowing it to happen what gives you that extra step accepting even if and we mean seen that a lot of it is proof of both torture not the essence but even if the latter was only proof of torture if this court examines the country conditions report that was part of the record that would have spoken to because there were reports that government security forces committed arbitrary or unlawful conditions on the three hundred and forty one dollars the record which is that same report it talks about the limited efforts to investigate and should we impose on an immigration judge then that in that scenario immigration judges to have a obligation to develop the records of the cases are asked and  is heightened when there is a post a petitioner before him such as to g m in in that context and i would just like to point out as the immigration judges are afforded tools as well in order to  forward those responsibilities if the immigration judge has subpoena power and you have the power to impose sanctions for failure to comply with orders so the judge certainly could have obtained this letter with respect to  to the immigration judge in order to proceed with this case st i would point out that that deferral occurred after he had initially at the march th two thousand and seventeen hearing requested the latter and again began on may hearing by again requesting the latter and the judge says ok and it's only after that point that the judge says do you want to do this today or do you want to wait a couple of weeks then come back and face the prospect i think judge stripper's question was about trying to apply brady in a civil context but even in a criminal context brady does not require the government to go out and get evidence it only requires disclosing the evidence that's already even did this prosecutor offices control doesn't even as early when you go to a different jurisdiction to get what they've got so aren't you asking us for a right in a civil context is substantially broader than what criminal defendants get first i would say we are not asking this court to extend brady to all of the immigration proceedings we're really asking that when that the entire relationship when an entire claim is based on this type of thing the government will sole possession of that document the government doesn't produce and who is the government the ice to that is in his file is part of what is produced in this case are you asking us to pose that responsibility on the judge we are not asking that this court always a impose an affirmative response ability on the judge but the judge did tell the gian that he would obtain that ladder that it would be part of the consideration in detail as intitled to rely on that commitment from the judge that he said he would she said ok our client was an occurrence a petitioner at that point and i think the contacts in which he said that is incredibly important here d v m had requested the letter during two different hearings the letter had not been produced the judge he how could he have known as a person a petition the lasting effect that that what happened and again after the judge had already agreed to do it and i was telling him i believe you i think you're credible i believe everything you've told me maybe we could switch it up a little bit your due process claim is that exhausted do we have jurisdiction over the our the due process claim is exhausted your honor and i would and i can point this court to places where he exhausted that but i would just like to st contextualize that by saying that this court has held that as long as an immigration petition or make some effort however insufficient to place the board on notice of a straightforward issue being raised on appeal exhausted his administrative gravity's and that comes from your landrieu and in that case i would just point out that before the b i a petition or not his argued that the immigration judge's findings were not department of justice explaining the threats to g m received and the danger he would face if he was to be deported and the reason ever quest for him as he is or should be granted gives one sentence about the purpose of cat and then the very next sentence is all evidence related to the possibility of torture should be considered in determining whether the convention against torture will protect an individual the next page he says respondent has not had the opportunity to adequately develop the record he makes similar up your thought i would just like to point out here that the government and i are in agreement about what the remedy for an exhausted meritorious due process claim is here the government does not contest that the remedy is a and constitutional issues st the on exhausted due process claim regarding the latter and then bring is a is a legal claim that the agency down by the right standard as to the through the record and the transcript and read it in its entirety and not picking out these particular comments petitioner did state that he had sensitive docket a sensitive document that is criminal i i believe he had expectations but as your honour's also noted at the end of the testimony he told that i'd say you seem to believe my claim he hasn't stated anything that j didn't you know that discredited from his very testimony he told that i i don't think you need to contact my criminal defense attorney for this document so there was really nothing that would but all of these things would fall into place and the factual record isn't before the court at this time that's whether there's a legal or constitutional issue he hasn't other than this letter which arguably would corroborate the claim he's not arguing that there's ignored evidence or missed evidence or that there's something that would have added to the claim before about immigration judge and the board and also get to it i mean because they don't even address any due process claim is other evidence that they weren't aware that there was this letter was a thing and that there was a due process claim before it so just with regard to  process that we need to go back to the board to consider and also on that point petition i had avenue of belief as soon as he received a letter he could have filed a motion to reopen with a boy and he could have asked to join the motion to reopen an order to present this evidence to the boy i don't understand why you're not challenging the due process claim on the merits it doesn't seem like we have a recognized to due process right like this but also even if the court believes that it's exhausted there's also the acquiescence claim and we would argue that it doesn't there's nothing in the latter that says anything about the jamaican government that would have anything to do with acquiescence portion of determination  and in this case they argue that the board applied the wrong standard for acquiescence here they viewed i just factual findings about what the jamaican government would do and found that his claim was speculated that but his claim that jamaican government would be willfully blind was speculative and that's in line with other cases by this court tennis found that the question is whether prison officials w concerning this individual should we go back to jamaica i ball that was part of that agency is the agent his analysis whether there was a clear cut ability of torture but that was part of and the question of whether there's substantial evidence that that supports that finding is a factual issue that isn't before the court and really it's just legal or constitutional issues and again he hasn't argued that i it was just it was speculative that the salvadoran government would be able fully blind in the person and possible torture and the court up held that and this case is very similar to that case required to consider whether the government is capable of preventing the harm that was in to gotten at that inquiry there and if i can just address two points that the governing council sad st the government admitted that the letter was corroborating evidence the letter also answers the judge's questions about what was unknown and it directly refutes the immigration judge's findings that there is no not write a letter in last there is a real risk of this happening here and the letter was just one piece of evidence that was to be weighed by the immigration judge and unless his client finds i mean they are questions we