everyone welcome to the th circuit as we continue our remote arguments word for all counsel is that if we do encounter technical difficulties just let us know we've usually we've been able to work those will hear st from mr hyde or shouted for petitioner thank you your honor good morning learned justices of this panel morning to be counsel representing the government in this natter and to anyone who might be the denial of a request for developed deferral of removal under the conventions against torture regulations of the convention against torture provide no person may be removed to a country where it is more likely than not that person deferential standard all mathematical proof provision for how exactly a decision must be made but a prediction must be made what is more likely than not that the petitioner responded in this case my client removed to mexico and he was physically removed to mexico between his removal in two thousand and thirteen and has returned to the united states and two thousand and fifteen in  g that followed him there they told him if you so methamphetamine for us we will harm you and so my client began extorted lee selling methamphetamine for c j n g after he began doing that the person who approached it inches away from it said blowing out the window of the back panel car where my client was sitting out of the car in all of this was testified to credibly as the immigration judge my client then got out of the car questions about relocating he ability to relocate within mexico and whether this was anything more than a private feud i guess i'll say that i might my concerned in reading your argument is that you would seem to mean that if we were to accept it that the united states would in essence become a safe haven for drug cartel members or  for people involved in personal feud over who's seeing who's sister thank you your honor for that and i recognize the importance of that and that's an issue that this court and many courts are always testified that he had tried relocation with in mexico multiple times it was discovered by c j and g he testified that he had no resources beyond where he was living with there in mexico to relocate he had winding down and i did reserve i believe three minutes for a bottle so unless there are other questions i would ask here or is the nature of my time for a bottle or for the government  for your honour's may it please the court my name is kristina zeidan and i represent the attorney general of the united states our position is that substantial evidence supports the agenc determination in this case that mr mcgowan it did not establish his eligibility or convention against torture relief and we respectfully ask the court to deny the petition for review there were five findings and this case by the agency and mr mcconnell's opening brief challenge three of those findings specifically mr mcgowan as opening brief  waived the any challenge to the finding that his his likelihood of torture in mexico was speculative because it was based on an unproven chain of with regard to the events that he feared would take place with and as for the nd finding that mr cooke on a wave he also waived any challenge to the agency's finding that country dishan evidence was insufficient to meet his burden of individualized fear of torture i do want to very quickly clarify something that opposing counsel said he mentioned that mr mcgaha when he was removed previously was removed before his thirty day appeal period expired and there is a waiver of appeal excuse me and the h s record in this case on pages four and five that waiver was put in place before he was removed and so moving on moving back to to the present  it challenge to be probative value that the agency assigned to leo gets all its attacks against mr mcgowan and also challenge the b whether the evidence showed that the government would acquiesce he it wasn't so much that he found that they found him but that he continued to work for c j and both times that he moved within mexico and and so there's and there's mr mcgowan a testified in this case that c j angie and the sin aloa cartel both cartels do not operate throughout the entirety of the country that's peaches to use to  and so in this case we would ask the court to find that substantial evidence supported the agencies supported the agency's findings that leo gonzalez's attacks were based on a personal feud between himself and mr and mr magara just as a as a substantial evidence in the record shows as this court noted these question right my question in essence is could this have come out the other way in the agency on this record and within the bounds of law in this case i don't think that that would necessarily be supported by the evidence if it did come out the other way then i think that substantial evidence is that that the substantial evidence standard is match but in this case there's just there's so little evidence as far as a whether the as well as far as whether the record backs up mr meconis fears in this case also i do want to quickly mention the agency found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the government would not acquiesce to mr rooke honest torture and mr and so our position is that arrest appeared to be based on a legal premise and in any case there were no charges he said that he was arrested whatever whenever a stabbing happened outside of a location where he was where he was sitting and that he and that some drugs were found in a vehicle outside that location as well and so  close to the court has no further questions i'll quickly wrap up between leo can solace and one other person because of a dating relationship in my mind looks at this record far too much in isolation but if we look at some of what was provided and not contradicted let's talk about the two thousand and eighteen human rights report that we've only seen human rights report found impunity unlawful killings forced disappearances and some fifteen into a it's been so bad that the da referred to them as a clear and present danger these for all documents provided to the immigration judge for whatever reason were ignored and overlooked and i think the holding under residental in the fact that if you decision was made all right thank you very much counsel which case will be taken under